Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-10; City Council; 13800; Rancho Carrillo Village J and KP. - CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGtdDA BILL AB# /?; $?-00 TITLE: _ DEPT. HD. MTG. 9110196 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” CT 93-011PUD 95-05 ClTYAlN. @2 DEPT. PLN %ItL CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. %$ -J&/ APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages “J” and “K” - CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05. ITEM EXPLANATION: On May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval with a 6-O vote (Nielsen absent) of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development (CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05) for a 186 lot subdivision consisting of 181 single family dwelling units and 27 affordable housing units as second dwelling units incorporated into the single family dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot (Village “S”). The project site is within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and is more specifically located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive and north of the Ranch0 Carrillo park site in Local Facilities Management Zone 18 as shown on the attached Location Map. The project is in compliance with the General Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report, Ranch0 Carrillo Hillside Development Permit, the Subdivision ordinance, and the Planned Development Ordinance. The adjacent property owners of Bressi Ranch requested a 30 day continuance to allow for the resolution of off-site facility issues. The Planning Commission did not honor this request due to recognition that 1) the project would be decided by the City Council subsequent to this time frame, 2) the recommendation of approval enhanced the project’s ability to resolve facility issues by providing the land owner with an increased certainty that an entitlement may be forthcoming, and 3) the entitlement conditions the project to pursue such resolution. No other comments were received at the Planning Commission public hearing. For the complete text of the Commission’s discussion and comments, please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1996. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139(E)) which regulates the entire 417.9 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development, including the mass grading of the Master Plan area, have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91- 04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level studies have been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91- 04 would not result from the implementation of the project. \ e h . 1 iAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /3, @P-t? # l This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Ranch0 Carrillo EIR and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on March 25, 1996. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 91- 04 are included as conditions of approval for this project. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significantly adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: Facility Zone I 18 II Local Facilities Management Plan I Complete II Growth Control Point I 3.2 du/ac II Net Density Special Taxes Village K - 3 du/ac Village J - 3.7 du/ac CFD No. 1 FISCAL IMPACT: All public facilities required to serve the proposed project will be available prior to or concurrent with development as mandated by the facilities plan for Local Facilities Management Zone 18. No negative fiscal impacts will be incurred by the City since the developer is responsible for all costs of ensuring the availability and construction of all public facilities. 1. City Council Resolution No. %b -30 / 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and 3932 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 15, 1996 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 15, 1996. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTIONNO. 96-301 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ADJACENT TO FUTURE MELROSE DRIVE, AND NORTH OF THE RANCH0 CARRILLO PARR SITE / ,,,’ CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” CASE NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 15, 1996, hi! / Id a duly noticed public hearing as pres 93-01 and Planned Unit Development 95 and adopted Planning Commission Resolu No. 3931 and 3932 recommending to the Cl ouncil that they be app the City Council did o , 1996, proposed tentative tract onsidering all testimony sidered all factors OLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. ns are true and correct. nditions of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. the findings and conditions of the City Council in this Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development (CT 93-Ol/PUD 95- e approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 393 1 and on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ,,- h “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” / “The time within which judicial review of this decision must bk sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, dhich has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad~unicipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper se review must be filed in the appropriate court nineteenth day following the date on which this final; however, if within ten days after the decisio request for the record of the deposit in an amo the estimated cost or preparation of such record, ime within which such petition may be filed in court is extend not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the re is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his att of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparati of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City k, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Cali PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOP Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: at a regular meeting of the City day of) 1996, CLAUDE A. LEWIS, May ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 4 -2- EXHBIT 2 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” & “K” CT 93-01 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 EXHIBIT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3931 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 186 LOTS INCLUDING 181 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND 1 FUTURE LOT (A PORTION OF VILLAGE S) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, ON EITHER SIDE OF FUTURE MELROSE DRIVE WITHIN THE RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN BOUNDARIES. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K CASE NO: CT 93-01 wit: WHEREAS, UDC Homes has filed a verified application for certain property to Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map approval as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“CC”, dated May 15, 1996, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference as provided by Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of May, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. . . . . cp . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) B) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tentative Tract, CT 93-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinw: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that it is a residential, low-medium density, single family subdivision designed in accordance with the Subdivision and Planned Development Ordinances and in compliance with the recommendations of the required technical studies for soils and drainage, as well as provide all public improvements necessary to serve the demand generated by the development. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project is consistent with single family development designated for Villages J and K by the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the mass grading plan approved by Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts with any established easements. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the area’s dominant western wind patterns/solar radiation patterns will allow utilization of natural heating and cooling opportunities. PC RESO NO. 3931 -2- , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. 9. 10. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR 91-04 have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the project as conditions of approval. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and drainage requirements of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have been considered and appropriate sewer and drainage facilities have been designed and will be secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages J and K, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following: a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation since the proposed density of 3.0 (Village K) and 3.7 (Village J) du/acre is below the density range of 0 - 4 du/acre specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. b. Circulation - The project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite and offsite roadway improvements prior to occupancy of any unit in each phase. Additionally, all roadway improvements to serve the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan must be guaranteed and substantially completed prior to occupancy of units in Village J and K. C. Noise - The project provides mitigation to reduce noise levels to 60 dBA within the usable yard area of lots abutting future Melrose Drive, and the project is conditioned to require compliance with the 45 dBA interior noise standard. d. Housing - That the project is consistent with Policy 3.6.a of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict 4 three bedroom dwelling units in Village E and 27 second dwelling units in Villages J and K as affordable to lower-income households. The provision of onsite affordable housing units results in a project density n PC RESO NO. 3931 -3- % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which exceeds the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre and requires approval of a density increase. The proposed density increase is therefore consistent with Policy 3.7h enabling density increases and Program 3.7i allowing discretionary consideration of density increases through the processing of a site development plan in accordance with and implemented by Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed density increase of 27 units above the Growth Management Control Point for the purpose of providing 27 affordable second dwelling units onsite to satisfy 90% of the project’s inclusionary requirement is consistent with Policy 3.8 allowing excess dwelling units to be allocated with the top priority being housing for low and very low income households. e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 LFMP in that 186 acres of performance standard open space will be provided throughout the Master Plan. f. Public safety - In accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo mass grading plan (HDP 91-17) and the Villages J and K grading plan and final soils report, all unacceptable soil conditions shall be mitigated to facilitate construction. Standard engineering grading conditions will be required for all requisite grading. 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies, and ordinances since: a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the San Marcos Unified School District. In accordance with the Zone 18 LFMP special conditions for schools, the project is conditioned to require that an acceptable school site is deeded to the San Marcos Unified School District if it is warranted and that a financing plan be approved by San Marcos Unified School District guaranteeing the construction of necessary elementary school facilities in Zone 18 prior to final map recordation or grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. C. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as PC RESO NO. 393 1 -4- 9 . ’ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. 14. The Planning Commission finds that: a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines 15 168(c)(2) and (e), and 15 183; b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04); C. there were EIRs certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan Update and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan; d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the prior EIRs; e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist. 15. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. 16. MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required. 17. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994, in that as conditiqned the applicant shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise. conditions of approval. d. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. PC RESO NO. 3931 -5- \" w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18. 19. 20. 21. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-3 84. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. The project, as designed, implements certain objectives and mitigation measures established by the General Plan Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality and circulation impacts as applicable to a residential project of this scale. These include: providing links to public sidewalk systems that connect with transportation corridors, and future schools, parks, and trail systems; providing for safe pedestrian and bicycle movements within the project: and designing the project to accommodate pedestrian spaces as well as proposed parking areas and building locations Lot 135 cannot be served adequately with a public street due to unfavorable conditions resulting from its location adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roadways which limits safe direct ingress and egress to those roadways from this lot which would thereby preclude the necessity of the panhandle configuration. Further the relocation of the alignment of Poinsettia Lane to the north at the direction of the school district limited the frontage available for Lot 135 at the cul- de-sac of “B” Street. The proposed lot configuration does not affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block. Planninp Conditions: 1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map for the single family lot subdivision project entitled “Ranch0 Carrillo Villages J and K”, Exhibits “A”-” CC” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, dated May 15, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. Approval of CT 93-01 is granted subject to the approval of PUD 95-05 and SDP 95-13. CT 93-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and 3932 dated May 15,1996. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. . . . . PC RESO NO. 3931 -6- \\ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24-inch x 36-inch, mylar copy of the Tentative Map/Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map/Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map/Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. 5. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision. 6. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated September 5, 1995, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. 7. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including but not limited to the following: a. b. C. d. Prior to recordation of a final map within Zone 18, a parks agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Zone 18 property owners shall be entered into; All future development in Zone 18 will be required to construct any future Zone 18 storm drain facilities identified in the current Drainage Master Plan and revised Drainage Master Plan as determined by the City Engineer; Prior to recordation of first final map, a comprehensive financing plan guaranteeing the construction of circulation improvements including Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, and El Fuerte shall be adopted by the City Council. Prior to recordation of any final map, the deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District, if it is determined that a school site is warranted and a financing plan approved by San Marcos Unified School District guaranteeing the construction of the necessary elementary school facilities in Zone 18. As provided in the Zone 18 LFMP, if any reimbursement and/or school fee credits are to be given, the school agreement/financing plan shall provide a mechanism to do so. 8. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans PC RESO NO. 3931 -7- 1% L ’ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 4 shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the project’s building, improvement and grading plans. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer and successive owners shall agree to hold the city or any other public service agency harmless from liability for any damage to the driveway of Lot 135, when being used to perform a public service. This approval shall be null and void if the property subject to this approval is not annexed to the City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. Additionally, annexation must occur prior to the issuance of any grading, building or other permit. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets. “Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for the citywide trail shown on the tentative map located within Lots 118, 185 and 186. If prior to final map the City has a funding mechanism for trial maintenance and liability and accepts the dedication of the trail easement, the Developer shall be required to construct the trail improvements prior to occupancy of the first unit and the City will assume responsibility for trail maintenance and liability. If however, prior to final map the city does not have a financing mechanism in place to fund maintenance and liability for the city wide trail system, the Developer shall be required to provide adequate security through bonds, letters of credit, cash or other acceptable security for the trail improvements.” Prior to final map, the applicant shall establish Master and/or Village homeowner’s associations and corresponding covenants, conditions and restriction. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. The following items shall be included in the CC&Rs: Master HOA a. Master Homeowner’s Association maintenance of the Recreational Vehicle Storage Lot (Lot 104 of CT 93-04). \f3 PC RESO NO. 3931 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage or parking of recreational vehicles within any of the Villages except in approved RV storage areas. C. The Master Association shall control the operation and maintenance of the recreational vehicle storage area, entry signs, common slopes and other common features as identified in the Master Plan. d. The provision of the Master CC&Rs shall be binding to the provisions of the CC&Rs for the Village Associations and may not conflict. Slope areas within individual villages shall be maintained by the Master Association if exposed to major streets. The developer shall submit a master maintenance plan showing all areas to be maintained by the Master Association to be approved by the City Engineer prior to any final map approval. Village HOA a. No private development shall be permitted within open space Lots 117, 118, 184, and 186 inclusive. b. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying that individual owners of property may replace original fencing on their property, however, such changes are required to comply with a uniform fencing and wall design for the project. The replacement of any fences or walls within this project must be consistent with one of the fencing or wall design types as shown in the Master Plan. C. Provisions for HOA maintenance of any Open Space Lot not maintained by the Master Association. d. All open space and landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The CC&RS shall not be modified without the express written approval of the Planning Director. Signs and Identification 15. Building identification and/or address shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or address shall contrast to their background color. 16. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. PC RESO NO. 393 1 -9- . ’ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. All signage shall be designed in conformance with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. Signage shall be located in conformance with the Landscape Concept Details Exhibit unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. Environmental 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR 91-04 that are found by this resolution to be feasible. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the attached Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit “X”) certified by the City Council on July 27,1993. The Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project Site with the project as described in the Final EIR 91-04, except as modified by this resolution. Paleontology: a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit; b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process; C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts; d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum; e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct the community theme/noise attenuation walls shown on the Landscape Concept Plan Exhibit, dated May 15,1996. Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall submit a detailed noise study addressing necessary interior noise mitigation measures for Villages J and K. Prior to issuance of building permits the following mitigation shall be ensured: (1) \@ PC RESO NO. 3931 -lO- \ r * I * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. the interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence are closed; (2) if openings are required to be closed to meet the City standard, mechanical ventilation shall be provided; and (3) all useable exterior space above the first floor shall be mitigated to the adopted City standard. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor (Melrose Drive), in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department). Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise, Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). The Developer shah post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department). Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Assessment (pp 39-40) dated December 1993 performed by GEOCON Environmental Consultants which include the performance of additional laboratory tests to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of DDT, DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated by Title 22 if soils will be exported from the site. A report detailing the results of the remediation program, if necessary, shall be submitted to the City. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: (1) to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; and (2) obtain any permits required by the USFWS. The issuance of a permit by the USPWS for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan mass grading project would satisfy this requirement. Housing 29. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict 27 second dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director not later than thirty (30) days PC RJZSO NO. 3931 -ll- P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. - - after final map submittal. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to participate in an offsite combined inclusionary project in Village E to meet their 10% three bedroom requirement (4 units), in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and City Council Policies 57 and 58. Prior to the City Council approval, the developer shall submit a signed Affordable Housing Agreement to the Housing and Redevelopment Director. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the approved project for Village E, to include CT 95-06, PUD 95-04, SDP 95- 12 as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3919,3920,3921. To service this development the project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District (NCTD), if such facility is required by NCTD. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as not to detract from the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit District. Prior to final map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Director, an agreement which will establish the timing and phasing of construction for the recreational Vehicle Storage facility. Prior to occupancy of the first unit within Villages J and K, at minimum, 4,160 square feet of recreational vehicle storage space shall be provided on Lot 104 of Village Q unless an on-site temporary recreational vehicle storage facility has been approved by the Planning Director. The buildings shall comply with the latest edition of the Model Codes adopted by the City of Carlsbad at the time plans are submitted for building permits. General 35. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy PC RESO NO. 3931 -12- \1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 36. 37. 38. ,- issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building. The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval. Enpineeriw Conditions: General 39. This project is approved for up to five final subdivision maps for the purposes of recordation. All public facilities required to serve each unit and meet City standards shall be guaranteed for construction prior to recording of a final map for that unit. 40. If the developer chooses to record a final subdivision map out of the phase shown on the tentative map, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved or conditionally approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. 41. 42. 43. All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the CC&Rs. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, offrcers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. \cA PC RESO NO. 3931 -13- \U - ’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the project’s CC&&s: “NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30-inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.” The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map. 45. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments that is in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Fees/Agreements 46. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 91-39. 47. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 48. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 49. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 on a form provided by the City. Grading 50. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 51. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. 52. Upon completion of any phased and/or project specific grading for Village J, the applicant shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map PC RESO NO. 3931 -14- \4 - ’ a II ,- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24-inch x 36-inch mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record. 53. Prior to the affected final map approval, the owner of the property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest shall execute and record a notice of disclosure and a hold harmless agreement on Village J noticing any future owners of the presence of a mitigated geologic hazard and indemnify the City of Carlsbad, agents, officers, and employees from any action that may arise through any subsequent geologic failure, ground water seepage, or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on or adjacent to Village J, due to its construction, operation, or maintenance. A notice to this effect and a reference to the recorded document shall be included on a non-mapping data sheet of the respective final map. 54. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Dedications/Improvements 55. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. 56. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. 57. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Melrose Drive, Poinsettia Lane, “C” Street of Village J, and “B” Street, “D” Street, and “H” Street of Village K shall be waived on the final map except for access points to Village S, or other designated access points as approved by the City Engineer. 58. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of -15- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the following: a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 59. Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not provided, shah be designed and incorporated into the grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate, as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer. Master Plan Improvements 60. 61. 62. 63. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the City Engineer may require an engineering evaluation of the stability of the existing Bressi Dam. The evaluation shall be conducted by an appropriate registered engineer. Any recommended improvements to protect the existing dam, if required, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to final map approval, an adjustment plat shall be recorded to align the western subdivision boundary line with the proposed centerline of “I” Street. Prior to submittal of a grading plan for the project, the developer shall submit and receive approval from the City Engineer for a phased grading map clearly detailing the limits and quantities of grading for this project. Prior to final map approval, the following improvements, as required in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP) and Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18, shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements, unless otherwise modified by the final decision making body, shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy PC BESO NO. 393 1 -16- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - of the first dwelling unit within the entire project. a. Melrose Drive - Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to prime arterial standards. 0 Construction of a median and two lanes in each direction and intersection improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Poinsettia Lane - Melrose Drive to Zone 18 Western Boundary l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to major arterial standards. l Construction of full major arterial standards from the intersection with Melrose Drive west to the entrance to Village J and the school site. C. El Fuerte Street - Through Zone 18 l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width. l Construction of one lane in each direction from the southerly boundary of the Master Plan to the entrance to Village T. d. Sewer Facilities, including: 0 Sewer main in Melrose Drive 0 Sewer main in or adjacent to Poinsettia Lane 0 Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section A 0 Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section C l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section D l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section F Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section G 0 North La Costa Lift Station e. Water Facilities, including: 0 A portion of the proposed potable 24-inch main in the future alignment of Melrose Avenue. 0 The proposed pressure reducing station at the southeast corner of Zone 18. l The proposed potable 30-inch transmission line in the proposed alignment of El Fuerte within Zone 18. l A portion of the proposed reclaimed g-inch main in the proposed alignment of Melrose Avenue. l The proposed reclaimed 38-inch main in the proposed alignment of El Fuerte within Zone 18. PC FUZSO NO. 3931 -17- A/v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 - l The proposed potable 1Zinch main from Melrose to El Fuerte through service Area E. f. Drainage Facilities, including: 0 Proposed double 5’8 5’ box culvert under Melrose Drive. l Retention basins, channel and flood control improvements necessary to mitigate for erosion and protect downstream properties from significant impacts. 64. An all-weather access road from a paved public right-of-way shall be constructed to drainage and utility improvements in accordance with the following parameters and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: O%- 6% grades may consist of a minimum of 6-inch decomposed granite 6% - 14% grades shall consist of a minimum 4-inch asphalt concrete over 4-inch of decomposed granite 14% - 20% grades shall consist of a minimum 4-inch portland cement concrete over 4-inch of decomposed granite 65. Prior to final map approval, public open space easements shall be placed on the conforming tentative map on slopes adjacent to all public roadways to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in conformance with the Ranch0 Carrillo Villages J and K Landscape and Maintenance Responsibility exhibit. Phases 1 and 2 Improvements 66. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and striping plans. C. The intersection of Palomar Airport Road and “I” Street shall be improved to its ultimate configuration, and shall include the following: l Fully actuated traffic signal with signal poles and mast arms installed at their ultimate intersection locations l Median improvements and installation of left-turn lanes on Palomar PC RESO NO. 3931 -18- Tf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 67. 68. Airport Road a Transition area on the south side of Palomar Airport Road to accommodate a future eastbound through lane 0 Improvements and appropriate transition on “I” Street to provide for additional turning lanes, as determined by the City Engineer. The City will enter into an agreement with the applicant to obtain proportionate share reimbursement for the above traffic signal from benefiting property owners to the north and south of Palomar Airport Road. Prior to final map approval for any portion of Village K, the developer shall provide evidence that an easement has been obtained for secondary access to Village K. Prior to occupancy of the 51st unit or prior to occupancy of any unit located 1200’ or greater from the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and “I” Street, secondary access shall be provided to the project as shown on the tentative map, in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If this secondary access is removed or eliminated, then an alternative secondary access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase 3 Improvements 69. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and striping plans. C. Melrose Drive shall be improved along the project frontage to include the following improvements: 0 No. 3 northbound through lane l Northbound bicycle lane l Curb, gutter, and sidewalk l Street lighting l Raised landscaped median 0 Landscape area between sidewalk and west right-of-way line 0 All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and sidewalk PC RESO NO. 3931 -19- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Phases 4 and 5 Improvements 70. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and striping plans. C. Poinsettia Lane shall be improved to full major arterial standards from the Village J entrance at “C” Street westerly to the Zone 18 western boundary. d. Melrose Drive shall be improved from the northern boundary of Village J south along the project frontage to Poinsettia Lane to include the following improvements: 0 No. 3 southbound through lane a Southbound bicycle lane 0 Curb, gutter, and sidewalk l Street lighting l Raised landscaped median l Landscape area between sidewalk and west right-of-way line 0 All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and sidewalk. e. A fully actuated traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane. 71. A copy of all of the above improvement conditions shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 72. All improvements required by these conditions must be specifically shown on the conforming tentative map exhibit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Fire Conditions: 73. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the PC FESO NO. 3931 -2o- P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names. Water Conditions: 79. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 80. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. 81. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following: a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. Also obtain GPM. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate parties. b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and PC BESO NO. 3931 -21- . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 82. 83. 84. 85. approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. - GPM - EDU). This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. The developer shall be required to adhere to all conditions of the water and sewer analysis on file at Carlsbad Municipal Water District Engineering Department. The developer shall install minimum g-inch DIA waterlines in all public streets. Exact sizes shall be established via a Villages J and K analysis. These villages must provide all offsite water, sewer and reclaimed systems to be completely independent of other proposed developments. Code Reminders: Fees 86. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Final Map Notes 8 87. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39.” 88. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data: a. This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit shall be issued for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. b. Geotechnical Caution: The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: PC RESO NO. 3931 -22- ?9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89. 90. 91. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.12.110(a)(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAIN: None WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpen& CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HtiZMILuR PC RESO NO. 3931 -23- . ’ . c - - RJuKllo~~P¶sm Environxnd Impct Repoti Mltlgation Monitoriq and%qmtbg Progmm A. Agriculture t 1. Impact. Possible soil umtami!utiOn fFom agtiah&c fosmuiy UJed or stared on the site. ;. Mitigctzion. L) Submittal Of s&s npOrr with miti@~n r&k&&~ if necusaq, t0 City Planning Dcparmunt ana fxtyHaitbDcpuPaa#. 2) lb¶iti@ontobmadcramdilionof tentative maps apprwed under the Mytcr Plan. 3) Repazt at completed rrmaiiion TV be submitted to City Planning Dcprnmcnt and C~tmty Ehitb Dcprronau up~a CompietiOn. Master Phz Impiementadm. A saih report fos tk M wnai by Cantincntai H~tnes and the property being deditued for park putp0su Ias beat tuhd by tbt PhIming Depytmurt . Any mitigation requind for his ~~lltamin&n B by this report will be rcmaiial prior to issuance of a grading pert& Imprtr may oeaoif addiWai pesticih c0ncmtratious and/or hazardoluwytc~olcont;rinar~liorrad~dnniopawnt,inwhich~thc referenced mitigathm would be appkabk S0ils tep0rts for odra: prwpab within the Master Plan will be rquirsd with the sub* of tmmhe maps. Chrckpoinrs. 1) Submittal of ach tadve mbdivisim map unde the Master Plan. 2) Apprcwai of each tentative map under the Muss Pha. 3) Compki~n of construction of each tentative map sthdiv&iOn. - . . ...,’ 3 Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Eugkting Dcpyrmcnts. Sanctions. 1) No mmive maps o be m without v amditions. 2) No final maps, building Or @iq permits M until rm&iatian rcp~rt suhittui. Impact. PossiblecbntlIaktwcnrcufiasuguof~pha~ and coatinued j. . Ll agticultunl use of 0th~ podns of the siec, iad* w dani& use, inigadon runoff, and odor. Almigarion. EttzbtmtativemapmurtproviderIi(ltof~aadimpactcritetiaspecified intheEIR,~rr~.~md~g~o~thcgdcvciopment~ compatible with cantim#d agriculti USC Masrrr Pka hnpbmdoa.’ T%ae win be Iw) impa if-t(s) indite that consistent with its practice since 1991, it inEndS to lbypQa htm use . . . Ckkpoingy. 1) Submiti of each tU&Ve SUMViSial nrtp rnda the w Ph 9 Approvalof&h~t&emapundertbtMastcrPh. 3) Cmsumkaof~~~ve~ Subdivision. - Responsiblr Pag. 1) Cii Phmiw d b-t - Sanmbns. 1) No tcnu&e maps to be lpplwrd withatt m -0 3) hrrpcctioo of construction by gnding hspcctor% NO btddihg permits issd ud Ma Criteria Illt implemented. . B. Biology Genemf Note. To ~lm the impiemamioa of all mitigatia~ foa pot&al impacts to biologhl resources, the applicant for each tmathe m;rp pqoscd unde tk Muoa PIan shall prior to approval of each ttnutive map, as appcqhfe. show eidawe to dw City Planning Depvvnent that a qualified consulting biologist hU ken tedad to monioof dl LdcyIpt LIh@hOn, m. compliance with mitigation fequircmcnrr, m imp&ma&m of dtiption, urd file ;I . report on mitigation compliance with the Phaning Dhtor upon completion of mar components of biologial mitigation tu@cmen& ,z :;- Impact. Implementa& of the -M;ran Ph win dktIy imprt wctkndt on-siitc ad, by 1' construction of a sewa line in the right OfwAy fhCMil0 WaytD r& m Off-Sk Mfigafftion. The a@- fix the project shall dtkr restme aad dune riparian habitat U an appropriate area ratio to impacts or hail pvridpar in a citydde mifigah prow through the City’s Habitat Maaagcment Ph. Mitigiott shall be aaompiiskd 00 the satishction of the City and in accordance with tbe tq&anattsofssctioa 16OOaseq.oftheCalifomiaF~and GameCodcandSeaioa401oftbeFakaK!aaW~~~~ Jfastw P&u fgktin. No mitigarion cequirui hr ofbite under sewa alignment currently proposed by appiiam north of Cmib Way alignma& Such alignment has no wetland imprtr checkpoinfs. Apprrnnlofthe~tmPtivrm?porgradingpamitaff&~wetlands~-~ . off-site unda the m Plato Responsible portl. ~ty~~~=iwDeoprmparq ah Depamnent of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Coq~ of am Sa~~ctions. NogradingmapmdatbeMastapkn. .LG\ . ’ . 3 .’ 3 i , impact. IfA& project in lr01 m to my d mti~ns of San Dhp thommint and thread-lawi brodi;ra, dcvdopmept~dmifiimdvimpIctdlOsCspecicr Miiigatiun. To pay miriw hpcrs, the m p&as hr San Diego thornmint tad thread-leaved brodii shall be implanentcd, modifM as q&led ‘m the EIR and after nvicrv and acceptance by CDFG, as ColLditiolu of lpprpnl of mrnrinc mtpa under the Mastrr pita. To the maximum extent possible, &g&n shall beaaompiiski prior to construction nsulw in impacts. I Master P&n Impiemeti~. Vies T md 0 brvt bsm ruxmfigud to avoid impaa tD thornmint. Village G has beclr reconf@ured to minim& m OD Brodiacl. ~trckpoinrs. 1) Submiaal of tadve maps. 2’) Aped of tawive maps. 3) Prior to construction causing impacts. Responsible Patty. 1) City Planing ani Enginming Dcprmacnu. 2) City Planning md Engineering Deparcmenu. 3) City Planning and En&&ng Departments, consulting biolw Sanctiuns. 1) No w of tentative maps fa VilIage G without acceptable mitigation reviewed by Caiifomia Deptmatt of Fii and Gnaw. fmpacf. Potential for future disturbance Of Upal Jeppc ‘Ucu. Ligation. Dedication of an open space easemeat over natural apn space, biological mitigation area, buffer areas, and tutu&ii areas to avoid dismham of the natural habitats as a condition of tenutive maps. c%rckpoints. 1) Approvai of tent&e nUpS. Responsible hq. 1) Cii Planning’ and Enghdng wa Sanctions. 1) Noqprovdoftadvemapswithout~of~tableopensprce easements and condition to dukate consetvation eBealeats~truru;rlopaIspace~ . - hpact. Possible predation or disturbance of Ca&rnia m or otk oensidve wildlife species by fittwe residau or domestic pm -.- I@ ,, I ‘) (2 Mawr Plan Iwtpiemmnution. NoqprmldTeanrinMPprfor1&clsdV~=~~~ mitigation condition, if any, squired by clriifibnrh wt d Fi aud Gone o U.S. Depanment of Fuh and Wddlife. Mitigatim. As dewmined by above r&u& agaxy. C’kkpoinfs. 1) Approval of tentative atap& Responsible Pm. 1) City &ming ti mg Dcputmentr. Sanctions. 1) No Tentative Map apprcwd witboot won, if any, imposed by ref&ttced lead agency set forth a~ a condition. Impact. Possible invasion of native p&t llpl by non-aative kdsqing species. Mtigathm. As a componcrrt of the landsuping plans for afktui ViUagu, rrvegctah ph . ‘1 c. for disturbed and mitigation areas shall be m by a w b&gist, and landscqing 1/ plans for tentative maps shall be reviewd by tk biologist- Cfteckpoinfs. 1) Approvai of tentative snap& I) Compkion of hadsaphg and rcvegeution. Responsibls Party. 1) City Planning and wg Depytmmtt, consulting biologist. Sanctims. 1) No approval of tentative maps widuut Eltirfictoi lrndtcrping and rwegttation pliUS. hpacf. Possible d&dance of native babht ams during grading and constrhon. 9. i I\ftigatiOn. ‘Ihc toruulting biologist shall e survying and s&ug of native habitat areas \i and monitor gr&~g and cowuwtion. - ~rckpoinu. 1) ApprovriOftarodwmrpb. t) mbcauPltintbiolo(ia. kponsibir PpLtl 1) City PlYming and Eqin&ng Dcpyrmara 2) cfm&ing biologist. Sancrionr. ij-‘Notpprovrloftenptiveanp~proprtilptiohdtion. 2) No issuance of building or Planning Depmment. occuprncypnni~untii~~bi0l0gistsreponissubrnittedtothe ,.- . Impotr. Potentially signifiant noise and zdvity imppctr ID Gmtatda during ming and consmction. .: ,* f;. 5 kftigazion. Due to cmflicting biologist’s opiniau qarding mit@tioa, ii114 mitigation plan, if any, shall be as approved by U.S. Fti and Wildtifc aad!or Womia Department of Fi and Game, as appropriate. . > .‘.’ cfJdrp0inf& 1) Approval of tenatk mrpt - Responsible Patzy. 1) City Phnning and a-g Depyrmena Sanctions. 1) Hait or ndirect gI&Ig or -on in ESU&& aIU, if my. .: . Impact. Possibte dismrbance of wildlife qm+ by odar lighhng. ,r, ‘! Mtigahn. I/ Outdoor lighting l#1v native habitat axus should be sbieided and directed away from consuvation easement areas. . C7~eckpoints. 1) &prowl of tentative maps. 2) Gmding and impmemnt plan checks. 3) Consvuction of improvements near CollscNItiQl Department bi consulting biologist. usemax aras with report to Planning . Re~pondble PMP, 1) city Pbdng ti Eqbaing Deprn=u p ,wa bioe= .- ” _-. 5 .’ sane&J& lj N~~dtmntive~withmt~aaditioat. 21 Nom ofm~ing~i~~pbarWithOUtpropa~~ 3) NOiSUmceof building or mq panirr witbaut propafy scq&hed mitiepion* -..4 _ __ _ ._ --- “- --*.- .a: _~ ;- hpacr. PotcnM for imw u) off-site sensitive ha&t atus fmm erosion and sedimentation from the project. ._ . . . . -* . ‘_ - $0, ,, , l d Miligation. See hydrology and m qu&y mitigat@ r Checkpoints. See hydrology ~JM- water Qullity titig&n~ ’ * *’ i :‘,,:. . . -.. . Responsible Pam. Set hydrology J& water grnlity tirigltion. . . *. < * ..: _ : i Smc~onse See hydmlow & - qaty &@a .:.“ ‘.. -I ” ’ - “; “” . . ..( _ . . C. Culturn Resourca ’ ,:* ._i >I . , <. , . . I . . by hpact. 12,740B. Possible vtndljism du to illCras& human pwenoc to uducol~gi~ de SW \ ?‘, l .A: ..( .., n, ; . ...<, .,.. ..’ a. ’ . Mtigan’on. The site &all be qxd with fAbric, a md vqeptian as a condition of the tentative map including the sloe Work musz be suprviosd by a quaiii?d -logist re?aincd by the tentative map apphat. . . ..‘.I . . _ i ..: ., ‘“.), . . . ,I ::.. Mbsrer P&n Implrmerobor. Rrir SioC is loaf& m s&e 10 be ddiatd to City of Cadbad for parkland. The capping of this tite will be the rup&iIity d the city Of c&b&. . _ _ . ~eckpoinfs. 3) 1) St&& of &vdopmcat piaaa fix @k 6 2) & Of Such phS. Report by coruufting &uabgh submitted to City phpnky Deponent upon completion of work and piior 00 mmmoyrmmtofdeYelopttmttofput:~ -‘: ‘. -I .*. - ,... .- ResponsiMe hi. 1) m Pluming and B WtS. .*2) City Mg Depament. 3) Coruutting uchacologist, City planing amf Eqhmhg Dcpuunen~. 33 s~nc&ns. 1) No rpprovrl of site development m tit&~ midprion iian. 2) * gnding pennits to be-issuai until miti~on report by conrulfing axchaeoiogiss is submined to City . P@nning Dcpytmart. : I. m.. Impact. Direct impacts of deveiqmau on arc&d& & &&lB. . . . . Mitigation. AdatlncovtyprognmuspecifisdintbcEIRmrutknquirrduacofidition of the tentative map including the site. Wo# mm be mpmfid by a qualEd archaeologist retained by the tenurive map appliaat and compel prkoo any consuwion affecting the site. i,’ * L ‘1 Maw P&n Impkmenufioa. Mitigadoa of this rite wiII not be squired uuiess this uca is disturbed by onsite riparian miti@oa. : _ ‘..). . . Cftrckpoints. 1) Appronl of applicrbk tentative 6. 2; Report by consuIting afchaeoiogist submitted to City Planning Deputnmt upon comphipa of work and prior to any *onding for consuuction affbng the site. Responsible Pmy. 1) No appmval of mahive map wi&a&ici&i& plan. 2) No building pcrmirs to be issued until mitigation report by cue&@ archaeologic is submittal to City . Planning Department. . ..__v . . _ c Impact. Direct impacts of devdqmmt on arc- ite SDI-4687. . ,. ; ‘,. .*. ,:,; Mtigation. Capping of the siitc as spaifial in dw EIB as a condition of any tentative map i-2 affecting the site. Work must be supewkd by a quaMal an&aeoio& rwainai by the tentative * r / map applicant and completed p&x to any consuuctia~ afkting cbe site. .Y - ~ . . . _,, . ‘% Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of appfiable tmtarive rmp. 2) Appmval of &able tentative map. 3) Reporr by consuiting a&neologist submirped ID city Planning Depxwnt upon complcrionof~~~priaooury~gar~~gtht~’ ’ . .., Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of appliable tamrive I&. .,‘. 2) Appmd of @able tentative map. 3) Rcpan by consulting ardudogist atbmiasd 00 City Phnning Depament upon completion of work and prior to say grading or m affmingrhesit&’ . i - ‘, Responsible m. 1) City P!a&ng and En- Depyrmenu. 2) Consulting * archaeologist, Samions. 1) Submittal of ra&ve map ODI w without mihgxion plan. 2) No appxwdoftamive~withous~~ 3) Nobuihbgpamiurok~d mitigation report by consulting ardaaeologis is s&n&i to Civ phming Dqarwws. Impact. Emma&malt OfprOpOsddcvdopnaaOftk~Pkn~ bd~ ‘mfY - ’ California’ setting of the Lea Canill0 hbosic rit. :rl hiih’grrrion. Establishment and implemenprioa d a s@& d&gn district as squired under Land Use Compatibility in this mirigsioo aM!mhg d rcpohng program. Chckpoints. See hnd Use Compibility~rctios. Responsible Pony. See bd Uk Compadhiiity sada~. Sanctions. Set Land Use Compatibility s&m. D. P&ontologid Resources Impact. Potential desuuctkm of signifiaat fmritr, @y in the Santiago aad Lusardi Formation, by grading and amsmxtion. Mitigation. Monitoring of prading by a ph~~logist, with rwway and cuxatioa of any significant fossils discovered, as specified in tk RR. Monitoring is to be @onned under the direction of a qualified paleontologist retained by the appliaat for ach tentative map. Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tent&e map. 2) Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of gnding. Responsible Pq. 1) City Planning aad &qin&ng Depumrcnts. 2) Consulting paleontologist, C S’crions. 1) Approval of tent&e q aa Qlcnplclc wi&out mi6@n p&n. 2) No building permits to be issued until micigatioa report by arnrulting e is submittal CO City P!mling Depammt __ . . . . I .- - E. Hydrology and Water QnalltJ Inrpt. Major d&mge &iJiy deign will be requi& to amid w ldversc effects of erosion, sedimenfarion, scouziq, and flu&g fmcn the dcvciopcd * h4itigotion. As a condition of,appmval crh enrative mop, tk applicant shall submit a hydrology analysis add&sing required fkx#d atEnuation, runoff flow r&ction/sikUion, and f ’ 5 proper sizing of d&age f&iliria Master Phn Implementation. A@iaat may submit one hyddogy analysis for the entire Master Plan arta. Chrck~ointr. 1) Approval of ach tcntrrin map. .i Responsible Party. 1) City &gin&q Dcpyrwnt 2) City E@n&ng Department, Sanctions. 1) Tentative Map condilion of appmvaL - . Impact. Major drainage ftifitin wilI have b be co& to avoid’potmfiai adverse effects of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and fk&q from the &&pal site. r I Y LL Master Pkzn Implemerrrtion. Appiii any shit one hydtology analysis for the entire Maser Plan ara. Mfigution. The fInal daision-- body s&U approve a F&g Plan addressing the sourccandrucoffundrforthe~ofrllnquired~fiEiliticspriortorrcording chcfintFiNiMaporthe~ of the ikst gmding or building permit, whichevair first. C7trckpointa Recoding of first final map Q ismance of fht grading or buiIding permit. each centacive map. Responsible Pmy. City Eagiedng Depanaa Sanctions. No teemding of fiml mq ar - ofpndinl:urbuildirypcrmitwithout Financing Plan guaranwe for wasu&a~ ofrapireddninyefrdttia. . hpact. Potential erosive ar fl=ding dalEage to - iPIdb~RanchParkd~~ runofffromthdcvefopedsite~*~~d~W bf&@z&n. ~hydroiogy~~f~tbcdrrinrLr~~dtbt~rbr[lk~mitoedwitb the appkabte tcnpriw map 01 pfiat b issuam Awnue, and m OfadlMzd~pQmitfa- appmprbclragesywemshallbe~*ro~ ilsuamofcheti grading permit affaztng the aru and caWw!ed ~withIhc~OfthcaffixK$ Chkpoints. 1) Approval of appiiabk tartah maps t) haae of fh @g pamit Responsible Pany. 1) Enginekng Deparunen~ 2) mg Dqutment. Sunctions. 1) No approval oi teqntive map without pmpa w system showy 2) NO issuance of building permits until d&age system imp&maUed. Impact. ~frtioaofthe~~~baMar1TSqerR~TiOparSprccAru 13 would disturb sa~~itivs biological m iachopeaspafxaru c \ drainincicherElFucrrcStreaor~~ L MastwFlanImpiementatiorr. IhbmmdniahasbardoaralimpareulhrtwiUbagradalua part of tie devciopcnem of Vii Q 9d R W possible to mrid s&rive habiut. Checkpoints. 1) Submiuai of ta&w mq dirr Village Q and R Wudii the storm drain. 2) Approval of Village Q and R cerdve mq. 3) caqWion of stmm drain amsrruaion. Rupontiblr Pa&s. 1) City Et#&ng Pcprmpcar 2) Cii ~&neaiq ~eparunent. 33 City Engineering Deparunent. Sunaimr. I) Submittal of tenutive mqnotcofnplcrcwi&outs&wingsDPrmdraiuinproper location. 2) No approval ofw&v8mrp wihssmnndrainsbwainpmper location. 3) NO issuance of building permits for radve mg ud IDwm Knin pmpaiy Q)1wNocd. fmpucr. Potential for increasti on-s&e cmsioa rad ‘&r-at su&aa&n &~KC3ITl when ground surface is disturbed during grading rpd e ‘1 .U@ptritm. An Erosion and Sdm coard Plan m be m for each development !y .‘j submircal. approved by the city w, ami in@- during ~I~SEI&WL : . Chrckpoinu. Approval of any grading a iqMana%planin~MaWPlanaru. Responsible Parties. City Engine&q e Simaionr. No approval of any @ug pmmifs widmut Emha rad Sdinwdoa Control Ptan approved by rha City Engia~. Impact. Patahl impa of urbm pdbtams hap ttu dmeiopd sim dksioa water quality in Biuiquitos w t. L ,Wigation. Discharge of ruadT!km devdopai aras imu aacmahd M rad public education infonniuion dibtribu~ to propmy owms Master Pson Impfemen&tiou. A deaad H@rologial Study must k appmv& prior ta issuance of a gnd~gp~ttfotthrOndinl~PPaMrmca~~Elarrar~wayr. 4 Cfieckpoints. 1) Approval of qpiiie caxaiw mqr. 2) C~~@abn of cunsauaion of drainage c&unnds.3~closeofucrowm~-. Respotuildo +rrrtlrr. 1) Ciy Ezqimbg Dqammm 2) city ~3qmuam. 3) Dfvdopers - SuRuions. 1) No appmvai of macive mqrdhac~dcrignofdddnagefsciliticS. 3 No issuance of buiidiag per&s unh rtmHdrrbnl, &Ii& pmpaiy m. Impact. Potcnthl fat grast, oil, rad odm uaUkidmt polhmm thm pwai surhcer to reach Buiquitos Lagoon in rumff. Mitigation. Best managuame practices s&A k m to prmmt ur$aa pOnaams fmm entering City w;uuways in compiiaace with N&ml pdllrera: Dii EIhi&on System mniciptl sumnwater penniuing fquiranax. Checkpoints. Approval of say grading or impnrvcmrnt planiatheM;rrprPltnaru Responsible Pan&s. City Engbeaiag Dcprmpra. Sitnuionr. No apprwai of any grading pamits wi&uf Erosion aad Uimamioa Control Plyl approved by the City Eagineer. F. GeoIogy and Soils Impau. Geologic co&ions potaxially mmi&ie QI devdopmax on he she without mnediation inciudc soils unsuitabie for lohbarhg or wirh &mse sademu~ pomhl, dd lrndriidc areas and claystone beds.aadhigh-groud~iaiilrnirl~ih M&iguriion. Remedii @ii will k Hurl to di firm ~~IOC& lb SUUUMM aadmsandto correaadvenesatlcarmradalluviai~w~LmuodwPrr; AaiiSayiPcarad engineering geologist shall k maid by aeh INbe mrprppllaaa,tsviswdeoiIcd~ino plans, prepam a dmM soil rad geoioljc inwdm w - rad m aunpiiance with the .Masmr Plan gm&gic iuvcaigah ti fhe City G&g OS Checkpoints. 1) SuhW of mch tam&e atq. 2) Approval of e3eh m uup aad iuuance of gmding permit 3) -aim ofumstmah ResponsiblePahs. I) City-e 2) CityEn@u@~ 3) consulting soiis alghf!m a& rarirrwrrimc-@sYm* h&ons. 1) TaxWe prlp mbmhnl 001 qlm widmu drpild sag rad geologic invmigatioa 2) Notwutivamap~withart~ad~~oPdrpproOrirvamdiins. 3) No issuance of b&Iii pmnits,wi&om criba ofprqm n&Qario~ fl . ’ G. Air Qudity r4 \ .L \ !, \ \ Impucr. Potaiai for sm d&t impam 00 regioml * qmiity due u3 imuses ia pollutlnt aaissioascausedby projserariltc. MMgadorr Implanematioa of Mastm Raa mumrmiud~bikelrneraad~esuiaatik,and requirement for applia for haxe m mapsm~wirhNonh~TruuitDisuiato provide bus routes and sropr % approprirc. ~eckpoints. 1) Sub&al of tax&e amps. 2) Apptmt ofmutive mrpr. RespondMe Pads. 1) Cky PIinning rpd Eqineaing Dqq~. s) oly n-t and Engineering Depuanenrs. Sonuims. 1) Sub&& oftcntuivr mqs me a~mpke wiha appruprirtc mitigaun Maui% 2) No approval of tent&a maps without qpiicxioa cuadiiar. E. Land Use fmpuct Developmax of the Wster Ph would eauoreh oaxh ‘ariy CAiirah’ sating of Ctilo Ranch Park. inchding the diahtioa of the amhan emy Q IM mch axnpugd. Mdigation. A Special Park Design Dii &ail k etabltbed for &vdopm~ nrmwding the pti, inciuding special commJs oa sabachs, Wsa@g, UMI Irchirr#pnl dmih rad aa enay though the parkrhroughVillageS. lheduigndMasu&rflswiUki&udaliadke~Plaaand subsquent tentative maps wiil be evaluibd f# amformrrrc by the Phauiag Coaunksioa. Checkpohts~ 1) Approvri oftho Masm Plaw 2) Appmddtmmiw ampsdue iaciude panof the dcsiga disuia. Ruponriblr- 1) Cityplrnninc~ 3 W-CDcptimrea sonuions. 1) NoqlpmvaioftheMawRaawirhorr~ drprrtdaigndisuiaaui devciopmcnrstaada& 2) Norpponloftaaivrmplaxmh@pmafdredcripdispia without sating fonh dirprict drvaopmaa sra&cds. &dude I3 .u&@llhn. Agreemuxwidlche%ilooIdistriuotldcdp~~~~~~ enhrcd by the Planning Coauniss~ Wb rcuh ddt dsnbpma whbia the da@ dhia, itisnotwithinthepowaoftheLerd~oprrPPnrht~lL~1CImid~or~idsd. \ i 'L- checkptktts. No Lead Agency &ckpoiarr wirhorr rqsepvn rirb Ik s&ml district. Responsible Pm&s. Responsibility bw miai@o is rthin tbr at&n-&y of amber jutisdiction urd not the City of Cuisbad. Siuwimu. None avliiablr to the City of C&SW pda & cirarmaraca. Impoet. Dedication of the open spm link at the sauhwat oeeyt of elu propay, where tha link crossufromonetoneto~djrcm~ip,irpaawrsd~athc~Mlttct~ Mtiqorion. Assure continuance of the apar sprc~ Iii 1 m of ti m Pk. Mimer &n fmpkwuatiorr. Cacisbd’s Open Spue AfMory appmvd he open space link proposed by the Master Plan at their Fdmuty 1993 m&q. . C7trc&points. 1) Appmvai of Maau Ph. 2) Apprwrl of - q iaciudiig village T. Respansibie Ponies. Phairq Dqmna sonaiont. No approval of h(ma Plan withoa opm qme li fmpo~. Applicants for the hktrr Ran root obtain a lath from dte Sa hkos Unifid School i, District accepting the site proposd by appiiam as pas&la school sire au in compliaacr with tie Zone 18 Locai Facilitia Mparocraar Pk ‘+ \/ ’ rwirigorion. Agreaneu with the San Mproor Unifid scbooi Diaricx I part of Master Plan approval. SMaiont. NolppiwrlofMrscaRtp~~riththl~diseriQ~compiiawith the Zone 18 Lo4 Facilitia w Pk. . - L Visual Aesthetics/Grading fmpncr. Grading propod by h m Plrp mqmirm fld@ j&m grading voium~ to be q \ qpmvai by the Plaaahg Dii ad City Euginm sotdiq m rhr HiDsUe Development Otdbancc. w a Miiigadon. Approval of fiadii tbr dw pm gmfiq vdm~ prior r~ approval of the Master Ph. Checkpoints. Approval of h&m Plaa. -. Responsibie Pmtiei. Plan&q Direaor md City Enghr. sznaions. No approval of the Masta Plm without be fa#n!d fhdii. Impua. Propotcd grading fdbr Fhc Mura Ph would acd Hill& Devdopmcnt Ordinance allowances for slope height at4 utcmacbmmt into 40 pwcm &pm withmt spaified endings by the daision making body. /r )* 2- Mtigation. Approval of flmkgs f& .tht propoW grU#g OOPePmPt wirb 1ppfov4 of the Master Plan. Chdpoitus. Approml of the Masm Ran. Rtspomible Pa&. Ddioo making Body. Sancriont. No appmai ofti Maser PM without ttu rap&d finding. fmpau. potcatirl irnprar of- Plan dm&pamR On aa visdy sahive Carriilo Ranch Park site, including VWgm S, 0, rpd Q. Mh@ciun Applido tmaiw mqr m indict aa scq@le daaild Idsape plan 00 cdu~8 ‘7, /a- , potential imptat. Implgba Qed pair Design Didu m i8EiRL?pdUUScaiop. \ Chrcfpoinfs. 1) SubmicUloflppliuhfe tentative mrpr. 2) Appmvd dqpkable temlbe mtpr. * Rapons@ie Pm. 1) C&y Pbaiq Deparmm~ t)qw=-spcpQIIIzLfzlt* sknuions. 1, Tau%iw nqrlPbmimlaoccomplamwidunR~ed~plm. 2) No apJriMloftentatiwtluPrirbopqpmQrirts -dl=-PPi=- 4% M Adaia/Gdng 1S fmpocr Potentially s@n,iffc;m impact of reauiod whidr storage in Opea SPm Afa 13 00 vim from existing residemu, -* L\ Wigation. Deuilsdl~p~1~~111Of~mqlor~QtpbRoocffcaivdy 1 screen views of recmrioaal vdGde smtag% Ckckpoincs. t) Stlmilpl &amciveq idud@ reerepioc@ v&i& mrage. 2) Appfovrl of tentative map including rea&omi v&i& w Responde Parties. 1) City Phming Dcplrmrnr 2) City Phuning Dqt==. Suncrions. 1) Submittal of tenative plop ax aomplas within approprirr, lmdruping plm. 2) No apptoval of tentative map without appropw lrpdsqrhg ph ? fmpcrcf. Potential signifianc visual impact of mi8e Qcrias ovm six fa in height. Mtigabt. DetaiM lmdsaping pian for tent%iw~topmvide~cowr,tunrrc,and , s variation of vegetation to M wails. I Chrckpointt. 1) S~bmicui of atty tmacive mq &wing X&O badas mm six feet in height. 2) Approval of any tenutiw mapsbowingnoisebaIiusovasixfe%ia~ . Rerpontiblr Pmtie. 1) City plrpainl ad B Dqmmam. 2) clfyPl%mingand Engineering Departmata. Sunrzionr. 1) Sti of appiiile macive mrp aa aompia8 with8 qpmpriuc IticJping plan. 2) No apprwai of rppliie tmzive v ritboor appmprh landtaping pian. .A\’ :\ I J. Circulation ‘UBfgtaion. The cii will aoaiapsfotumwmfkmd%amiw~ withLFMPscandad rabtoideatifyaadimpllmna~DlerstymmuthrsudmL ckkpoim. ConrtrPcrioaof-rmprovsmrar. RrrponsatrPaMa. CltyEr&uim~ h . . . soncabltt. miuuaace ofbaildhgpambifGtw&M~~hrtWllcI~of stnriceareaarac . fmpuefs. Sprdnlof~eAnr~sctioaon~AirpatIIordirtOOfccrdosa~~ standards ailow. w MMgdon, Tamtive maps &ail amply with City cod ai@ua ad ‘bctetsecdon spacing scadards tothe~fictionof~atyEllfiaca. . 5 .L. Masw~ImpfenJrJct8dor. nleloc%ionsiwllootbr~h6%erPtmhunotbeulcevisd md!mbmaapptovedbydmCityEa@eer. . I. chrdtpoinrr. Appvaioftetmivemaps. - Reponsrblr Pa&es. City Engineering Depmaas Sbtaionr. Notgpmvriof~emrOIthrtQaoraompllr~~mddi~~md intersection spacing to tiw misfhioa of drr C3y Eqiaw. fmpu. Aspro~devdoplaultofth8~~uoddKqaire~signalsoFai- Airpon RoadJacms rod to Village E lad it Melmu Avmdm to viuages H, 0, md L. /.: 2 3 M&jgucfon. Conditioo tmmive acapsmconnroatbraecea%ysignais%ldimpmvenlti.ot daaminethcaeedforsi~tuenfficsludi~filrriva~. Cfuc&poinu. 1) &had of appiiabla tamive mqs 2) lrppwrl of appiiable tenarive maps. Responsibly Pada. 1) City Eaghe@ hpama~. 2) Csty agimaing Deparmm Sanuimw. 1) Noqpmvd0ftal5tiW~wicba%~mrdick~~ c?&e&p~q Appmnlaf~q&. .> ‘J -.:.. . .’ p* bponsib&Porhr, 1)Chyl’hmiagand~~~ t) CJW’-W~ Engineering Deparamm. -_. slncfhs. 1) Noqprovdoftwl%iva alapswidu-md : .i , . I L K Noise ’ . . . L./. . : ., . Impue. c~~rdjrcanoomrjorrorb~dr~~mrappidapcriencc~tnfRc noisainexcessoftbCiysnadads0f6OdBACML. I ,#. -, Lwtigadon. Talt%ivemapa~sllow~ :%,l>,.+‘. ‘-’ -L . d . .,.. I &&&imr~iutbcEIRormcity \t ’ .\ sulmfds to artalummise. IfgndiagrbowaiadrA6sr%mdDIbnJoOmanin-d excessive uaactaxutd noise is mdifid by ta&w& Iha mdi!Mbmsballbeteviewadby~ CityEngineeadrmwacudals0adyWlkplbrmdd~ aIiLig%ioa imrpid ifindicard. featnivamrpslpplicrnrtrhrllhmdrapcioaal~a~~ninhci~al * buri~ovcrskfcaoomIcu~rixf~DD~~imrm~QYPOIiCY. .“,..:’ - -. chekpohtf. 1) Appmvai of mtative mu 2) a, &. . :’ 2 &LLmm. RItponsiblrP-. 1) cr*wrpd~‘:n;..:..--‘.-‘.. .j ‘,-’ i 2) cl&king DepWUllalL , . _;. I* ,. ‘i ; Sondoms. 1) Noappmvalrrid#utproperbrrriarramibk 2) No issuace of SubS~ permits. . ,,.., ,: .; ? -. . . . _ .” ~.. . .’ ‘. ; ..r ;‘. i, F_ ‘: ; I, ,.L - Impact. Saond floss of B ruidasial oaio m to acd8b W roadways COUM eXpti~imnlPcaoiwlrwlrin~Ofth4SWClUEL~ _,( . . ‘1.. ~~_- ,-. .. . ‘. \ + Mugoziu& Rppovdtemetvr~sbai~beriprrml%ve~sx~~lcLideac%BLxIfo CireulpionEIIplrpt~~wouLd~ipriorpoirbrrb~~dBAcNELOr~Crrfot feamfior~~ Amdaismdi%to~ Mam@ww-w Engineer. ..f; . . -” c7l~ckpoin8.1) AppmvdofIwrrkr~ 2) &pa&d.- . RupoysibhPmda 1) CityRplninl4ad~D+W= 3-m ’ sbu#iom* 1) Noqlptwdwidumt~buTias~r-. 2) Noisa88ce pamiu. . . \ Of -lyJ l 1 . L. PubIicFzaciMksandW .I - .’ Auugaiiorr. Priortorhe~ofallyQIIpq,lpdaIbrM%ru~ sllfmaxp~~ be dedicami within Zone 18. . - c7kkpo~.Record%ionof~~maQ%uiercbrMrpr~’ 3 . Sonaionr. Norrco~aofflnrlraq~AdlmtrdOPdCiCIIPUtfiPd~~~P~D~. 4. Impact. Thr~~~~thtrcrkrdSbjgtOtYItbtdCCdbdODdK~ M~cosUtidScbooldirPia(SMUSD) laddrr:aflnwingphnbeappwdbytheS&tUSDprior torecordacionofmyfbuimaparissuaaa d~gadiaga~pcrmitizo8elt. s Muption8 comprirocrwitht!%zolutt~ CkkpoiM. 1) R-ofthe~fiarl6Quaderd%kpLa 2) lsuaac8ofq gMllg0dUiidhlgqamitindl8~~Irr __ *- Responriblr Pad&. City Plaaning Apd Engbdq Dqmmma Sonabns. NoFdmprwrddwihuUM?&~~. -_. Imprrct. ~Irarrt#aalaldexcad Msutcrmmrrrtlbr7046. trea%m~if~~occuniadle M. SOW Waste Disposal Import, Dcpcadinloa~~pknninl~~9,~u~~Il-u;rr,~LapaadrlLior solidwasmgaurud[romdmklrttaPlamm~Bedd@aalcqmQ~ r MUgodim AppiiaarsbrtmtaiMrmpIpropadiWMrPtPLorrrdr(fdcmoastrPrthr meaas of feasible solid waste disposal am milabk c7teckpoinrx. 1) Appfduftmmivemrpr~tbeularr~- Rapode Pmia. 1) City P!=W d MDe$--- Sanctions. 1) No approval of taxarive mtpr widroa @ - of misting dkposri apaciq. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 /I to wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3932 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 186 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH 181 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 27 INCORPORATED SECOND DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF FUTURE POINSETTIA LANE, ON EITHER SIDE OF FUTURE MELROSE DRIVE. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J ANDK CASE NO: PUD 95-05 WHEREAS, UDC HOMES has filed a verified application for certain property 12 13 14 15 Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 16 17 16 19 20 with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit Development approved as shown on Exhibits “A”-“CC”, dated May 15, 1996, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference (PUD 9505) as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of May, 1996, 23 24 25 26 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Planned Unit Development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 4 That the above recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Planned Unit Development, PUD 95-05, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the single family low medium density residential project implements the designated General Plan and Master Plan land use and incorporates all required development standards and design criteria specified by the Planned Development Ordinance. 2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the community, in that the single family development will contribute to the balance of housing types in the City. 3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that the project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan ensuring that the necessary public facilities and infrastructure will be provided concurrent with demand and that grading will be in accordance with the provisions of the Grading Ordinance and the recommendations of the geotechnical analysis. 4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in Chapter 21.45090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the project provides the necessary public street widths, conveniently located private recreation areas, adequate resident and guest parking, setbacks, and landscaping. 5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site, in that the project grading is consistent with the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17, and units will provide variation in architecture and roof colors as well as landscaping and uniform fencing on HOA maintained slopes to screen structures from surrounding roadways. PC RESO NO. 3932 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with the development approved for Villages J and K by the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. Villages J and K abut future Melrose Drive and are surrounded by other Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan villages designated for single and multi-family development, as well as the designated school site. 7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project, in that its road design will provide automobile and pedestrian access to each of the units via a public street system as well as satisfy guest parking requirements in proximity to the individual units. 8. The Planning Commission finds that: a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines 15168(c)(2) and (e), and 15183; b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04). C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the prior EIRs; e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist; 9. 10. 11. 12. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-384. - PC RESO NO. 3932 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: 1. Approval of PUD 95-05 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-01 and SDP 95-l 3. PUD 95-05 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 393 1 for the Tentative Tract Map, CT 93-01. 2. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the approved CT 93-01 and SDP 95-13, as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and 3933. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAIN: WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair$erson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: c PC RESO NO. 3932 -4- EXHIBIT 4 Tbe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 1 0 P.C. AGENDA OF: May 15, 1996 Application complete date: November 4, 1995 Project Planner: Brian Hunter Project Engineer: Ken Quon SUBJECT’: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95OS/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J and s - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Site Development Plan to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into 186 lots with 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwelling units incorporated into the single family dwellings on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 18. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and 3932 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CI’ 93-01, PUD 95-05 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3933 APPROVING SDP 95-13 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of multiple permits to subdivide and develop the 75.5 acre site into 186 lots containing 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwelling units incorporated into the single family dwellings, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot. Village E (CT 95-06), which has been previously recommended for approval, contains the four three-bedroom units which will satisfy the three-bedroom requirement for Villages J and K. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report, Ranch0 Carrillo Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17), the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Planned Development Ordinance. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed subdivision, which is located in the P-C Zone and within the boundaries of the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan, is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low Medium (O-4 dwelling units/acre) density. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan was approved by City Council on July 27, 1993. The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the Ranch0 Carrillo site, while preserving the environmental resources of the area. Grading for the entire Master Plan area was approved under Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17. For CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K . MAY 15, 1996 Planning purposes, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan is divided into Villages A-T. The Master Plan identifies the allowable type and intensity of land uses in each village and provides general development and design standards, requirements, and the method by which the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan will be implemented. The 75.5 acre parcel is identified by the Master Plan as Villages J and K. The site is bifurcated by Melrose Drive and consists of gently to moderately sloping hillside terrain which rises from approximately 200 feet to 410 feet in elevation. The site has been previously cleared for agricultural use and currently contains non-native tall grasses and coastal chaparral in the undisturbed areas. No direct impacts to protected biological resources were identified within the Village boundaries. As shown on Exhibits “A”-“CC”, Village K consists of 116 residential and 2 open space lots. The lots range in size from 6,000 to 23,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. Village J plans 65 single family residential lots and 2 open space lots and is located west of future Melrose Drive and north of future Poinsettia Lane. This village is being developed as a standard R-l subdivision with minimum 7,500 square foot lots consistent with the approved Master Plan. Per the approved Master Plan, Tentative Maps and Planned Development Permits may be processed through Planning Commission and City Council without floor plans and elevations. At the time of Tentative Map approval the Planning Commission and City Council shall adopt design guidelines for the project. Before obtaining a building permit the applicant shall submit floor plans and architecture for staff review to ensure compliance with these guidelines. After reviewing these plans and determining that they are in conformance with the design guidelines that were approved as part of the Tentative Map, staff shall present the floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.160 for a Planned Development Permit Minor Amendment. Pursuant to the City’s adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base dwelling units must be provided for lower income households. Villages J and K, when combined with Village E (104 units), have an inclusionary requirement of 46.8 units (312 x .15). The three bedroom requirement of 5 units will be provided in Village E. Villages J and K are responsible for 4 of those 5 units. The production of these units will be governed by an affordable housing agreement, which will be in addition to the Site Development Plan which approves the affordable housing development within Villages J and K. The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, and programs and zoning regulations: A. General Plan B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139E) C. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance) CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/aDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 3 D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) E. Growth Management Ordinance F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)). Iv. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The Villages J and K project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed single family project abutting a prime circulation arterial roadway are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, and Housing Elements of the General Plan. Element Use Ciassification, Goal, Proposed Land Use And/or Compliance Objective or Program Improvements Land Use RLM (O-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) Project is single family residential at Yes a density of 3.0 (Village K) and 3.7 (Village J) dwelling units/acre. Growth Control Point (3.2 Dwelling Units/Acre) Increases above the densities The General Plan Growth Control Yes allowed by the General Plan may Point is exceeded due to the be permitted by Site provision of affordable housing. Development Plan for the Please refer to the Site provision of affordable housing Development Plan discussion for elaboration. Encourage the provision of low Project includes 27 affordable studio Yes income dwelling units to meet the and one bedroom units on site and 4 objectives of the Housing three bedroom units in the adjacent Element. Village E. Ensure that all hillside The proposed grading design is Yes development is designed to consistent with the approved Hillside preserve the visual quality of the Development Permit HDP 91-17 for pre-existing topography. the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan. &I 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/sDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 Element Housing Use Classification, Goal, Proposed Land Use And/or Compliance Objective or Program Improvements Permit the approval of The project is conditioned to Yes discretionary actions and the construct/install all public facilities development of land only after necessary to serve the subdivision. adequate provision has been Citywide and quadrant wide public made for public facilities and facilities are adequate to satisfy the services in accordance with the additional demand; therefore the Growth Management public project is consistent with the Zone facility standards. 18 LFMP. Ensure that master planned Project includes 27 affordable studio Yes communities and all qualified and one bedroom second dwelling subdivisions provide a range of units on site and 4 three bedroom housing for all economic income affordable units in the adjacent ranges. A minimum of 15% of all Village E. units approved in master plan communities shall be’affordable to lower income households. Srculation Require new development to Project is conditioned to complete Yes construct all roadways necessary all necessary street improvements to development prior to or prior to occupancy of any unit in concurrent with need. each phase. Noise 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior Project provides mitigation to Yes noise level and 45 dBA CNEL is reduce noise levels to 60 dBA within the interior noise level to which the usable yard area of lots abutting all residential units should be Melrose Drive, and the project is mitigated. conditioned to require compliance with the 45 dBA interior noise standard. B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan As described below, Villages J and K comply with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan General Community Development Standards and Villages J and K requirements including: a) product type and density, b) approved Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17, c) design criteria, and d) Master Plan infrastructure requirements. a) The Master Plan designates Villages J and K for single family development with a density range of O-4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of 181 single family units with 27 incorporated second dwelling units produce a density range of 3.0 (Village K) to 3.7 (Village J) dwelling units/acre which is consistent with the Master Plan. Village J is to be developed as a standard R-l single family subdivision, while Village K was recognized by the Master Plan to be developed as a Planned Unit Development due to the fact that there were lots less than 7500 square feet in area that would be proposed. As noted previously the Master Plan allows delayed architectural review via the adoption of design guidelines at the tentative map stage. The following is a 6 5 4 CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-OS/SDf 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 5 synopsis of the design guidelines for Villages J and K. ISSUE Village J Design Guidelines Synopsis I COMMENT Unit Mix A minimum of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 6 front building elevations. 8% one story minimum. Plotting of Units No floor plan shall be plotted more than 60% of total units on a street; no two units with same facades closer than 100’ on the same side of the street; and units may not utilize the entire building envelope. 40% lot coverage. Setbacks Melrose Drive - 50’ Poinsettia Lane - 40’ Front - 20’ Side - Standard R-l 7500 Architecture Architectural style per Master Plan; three chimney maximum, three color schemes minimum, varied streetscape via varied materials Garages Minimum 20X20 interior dimension with doors offset. 3 car garages shall have a mix of 1 two car door and 1 one car door and 3 one car doors with the two car door having a minimum 12” offset from the one car door. As noted previously, Village J is to be developed as a standard R-l single family neighborhood. Even though the graphics within the Master Plan clearly identified a panhandle lot (Lot #135) at the northwest corner of Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane, the special design criteria for this village did not acknowledge this potential. The City Council may approve panhandle lots if the following circumstances are found to exist: (1) The property cannot be served adequately with a public street without tP Accessory structures I Permitted similar to R-l zone Walls and Fences I Per Village J landscape exhibit Signage I Village identification and directional information Second Dwelling Units 9 lot minimum, approved as part of the delayed architectural review and processed consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.10.015. Minor Modifications Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per Planning Director approval if determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. CT 93-Ol/E’UD 95-05/sDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration; and (2) Subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property. Village J is located between a steep slope with native vegetation on the north and Poinsettia Lane on the south. In order to minimize grading and impact to the native vegetation, no further movement to the north is in order. However during the process of school site (Village S) acceptance between the developer and the school district, Poinsettia Lane’s intersection with Melrose Drive was moved to the north to allow for a less linear school site. This increase of developable land on the south side of Poinsettia Lane resulted in a corresponding reduction of usable frontage along B street within Village J. Although the lot has over 24,000 square feet of area, its frontage was reduced to 20’ at the end of the cul-de-sac. All requirements for development standards for panhandle lots (lot area, width, yards, parking, drainage, placement of structures) are met with this proposal to properly develop this property. A condition will be placed on the lot that requires the property owner to hold harmless the city or any other public service agency from liability for any damage to the driveway when being used to perform a public service as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.10.080(d)(9). Village K Design Guidelines Synopsis ISSUE COMMENT Unit Mix A minimum of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 6 front building elevations. 8% one story minimum. Plotting of Units No floor plan shall be plotted more than 60% of total units on a street; no two units with same facades plotted closer than 100 feet on the same side of the street; units may not utilize the entire building envelope. Maximum 101 coverage 40% - 2 story, 50% - 1 story. Setbacks Melrose Drive - 50’ Front - Per the Planned Development Ordinance Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45090(b)(2)(A) Rear - 15’ minimum Side - 5’ minimum, 10’ minimum for corner lots. All units shall comply with the building separation requirement of the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.090(5). CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 ISSUE Architecture Garages Accessory structures Walls and fences Signage Village identification and directional information. Second Dwelling Units Minor modifications COMMENT Architectural style per Master Plan; compliance with small lot guidelines; three chimney maximum; three color scheme minimum; varied streetscape via varied materials. Minimum interior dimension of 2O’x20’. 15% minimum two car (balance may be three car). 3 car garages shall be mix of 3 one car doors and 1 two car door and 1 one car door. 12” offset between two car door and one car door. Permitted similar to R-l zone unless lot coverage or fire suppression area prohibits/restricts location. Per Village K Landscape Exhibit. 18 unit minimum. May be approved as part of the delayed architectural review process as long as consistent with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per Planning Director approval if determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17) approved concurrent with the Master Plan in that the subdivision grading design is consistent with the approved mass grading design. Cl Due to its location adjacent to Melrose Drive, a 50’ landscape setback is required to screen the units from the roadway and to buffer residential units from traffic noise. The proposed landscaping within this setback area is consistent with the Master Plan landscape guidelines. Streetscape landscaping, community theme walls and fences, village fences, as well as Village entry monumentation into the project, are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. Exterior noise levels for units along Melrose Drive will exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL due to traffic noise without mitigation. The 6’ high community theme wall proposed along Melrose Drive will mitigate exterior noise to acceptable levels. d) The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to serve the project are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in accordance with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Two major items with regard to circulation are associated with this and future Ranch0 VP CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/sDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 Carrillo projects. Major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain site access to the Master Plan area. This will include construction of Melrose Drive to a minimum number of lanes, rather than the ultimate lane configuration, for this arterial roadway. An assessment district is currently in the formation process between the Ranch0 Carrillo property owners to construct this improvement. Each tentative map for Ranch0 Carrillo will be conditioned to construct its Melrose Drive frontage improvements, which will add the remaining lanes so that this major roadway is constructed to full- width, in accordance with City Standards. If the assessment district is not formed, then each Carrillo Ranch tentative map will be conditioned to construct Melrose Drive frontage improvements, the roadway system needed to access the given site, and Melrose Drive as required by the Master Plan. As circulation element improvements have yet to be constructed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that the construction of Melrose Drive, Poinsettia Lane, and El Fuerte Street be guaranteed prior to approval of the final map, and substantially completed prior to occupancy of the first unit. Conditions will be imposed on the project to construct the third northbound lane on Melrose Drive along the Village K frontage, the third southbound lane on Melrose Drive along the Village J frontage, and full improvements for Poinsettia Lane from the entrance to Village J westerly to the western subdivision boundary. The circulation systems for both Villages J and K have been laid out in accordance with the requirements of the previously approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The road systems consist of local through streets and local cul- de-sac streets, all of which are public. These streets have been designed to City Standards and will consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk contained within the right-of-way widths specified in the Master Plan. Access to Village J will be provided off of Poinsettia Lane, just west of Melrose Drive, and directly across from the future street access to Village S. The layout of Village K is such that there are two separate tracts, north and south of each other. The southerly tract of Village K will take access off Melrose Drive, directly across from the planned eastern terminus of Poinsettia Lane. The northerly tract of Village K will have primary access from Palomar Airport Road through a series of planned local streets. The required secondary access will be provided through a similar local street connection that will be constructed in the development of adjacent Master Plan villages. A condition will be imposed on this project that if this secondary access route is not in place at the time of construction of Village K, an interim secondary access will be constructed to comply with the City’s cul-de-sac standard. With regards to pedestrian circulation, the eastern edge of Village K and the southern edge of Village J will contain portions of the Citywide trail system. This 8’ wide trail will be constructed of decomposed granite, asphalt, and concrete. h - CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/sDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 Sewer service to this project will be provided by public sewer lines that will tie into a 12” sewer main to be installed to serve the entire Ranch0 Carrillo development. The sewer lines for this project will drain by gravity flow in a westerly direction to join the sewer main along Poinsettia Lane. This sewer main will then connect with an offsite pump station, which will pump sewage to the existing Buena/San Marcos Interceptor system presently located on El Camino Real. As sewer improvements have yet to be installed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that sewer line improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map. Domestic water will be provided to the project from trunk lines of the 12” water main beneath Melrose Drive. These trunk lines will enter the development beneath various streets of each village. The 12” water main will be installed concurrently with the construction of Melrose Drive. An 8” reclaimed water line will be installed in Melrose Drive and will be tapped for irrigation of the slope areas. As water improvements have yet to be installed for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that water line improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of the final map. Surface drainage will be conveyed by standard curb and gutter to drain to an underground storm drain system, with various approved outlet areas. A broader drainage issue associated with the entire Ranch0 Carrillo development is to provide drainage improvements to mitigate onsite runoff upstream of this project to prevent adverse affects to downstream onsite and offsite properties. A condition of this project will specify that construction of drainage mitigation improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map. C. Planned Development Ordinance The proposed 186 lot subdivision consists of 181 single family lots, 4 open space lots, which are divided into two separate villages by the master plan (65 residential lots within Village J, identified within the master plan as a standard R-1-7500 single family subdivision, and 116 residential lots within Village K, identified within the master plan as a planned unit development with some lots less than 7500 square feet in size), and 1 future lot (part of Village S). Within Village K residential lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to 23,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. Due to the minimum lot size of 6000 square feet within Village K, the Master Plan recognized that a planned unit development would be required as part of the discretionary process for this site. The Master Plan identified specific design criteria that reflected the standard R-l single family nature of the village; 1) Lots with a minimum width of 60’ shall have a side yard equal to 10% of the lot width, and 2) There is no requirement for the provision of common recreational facilities as the majority of the lots in the subdivision have a lot size of 7500 square feet or greater, and the village is adjacent to significant open space and has several points of access to the community trail system. With these exceptions Village K must satisfy the Planned Development Ordinance requirements for single family development. CT 93-01/PUD 95-05/SDY 95-13 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 The project’s design is consistent with design criteria specified by the Planned Development Ordinance in that it is consistent with the General Plan and Rancho Carrillo Master Plan single family residential land use designations for Village K and will provide the required Circulation Element/Master Plan roadways. The proposed internal circulation pattern, which includes 51’ to 74’ wide public streets, is designed to provide direct access to individual units which contain at a minimum two car garages. The street system will provide on-street guest parking directly in front of each unit. Each lot contains a minimum of Wx15’ flat, usable rear private yard. The architecture will be consistent with approved and/or proposed development in the surrounding Rancho Carrillo villages. The following table summarizes Village Ks compliance with the Planned Development Ordinance development standards: :E COMPLIANCE N RD Standard Proposed Lot Size (min.) 3500 square feet 6,000-23,000 square feet Front Yard Setback 20 Feet when garage faces directly onto a street; however setbacks may be varied to a fifteen foot average with a ten foot minimum. Same as required Building Separation 10’ Minimum Minimum 10 Feet Building height 30 Feet 28 Feet Maximum ~~~ Private Street Width ~ ~ ~ ~ 36 Feet (parking both sides) ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Public streets with a minimum 36 Feet curb face to curb face width (parking both sides) Parking: Resident Guest Second Dwelling Unit 2 car garagehnit minimum = 232 spaces Onstreet parking (>116 spaces) 18 spaces 2/Unit = 232 spaces 32 spaces l/unit = 18 spaces RV Storage 134 (116sfd+lSsdu) x 20 = 2,680 square feet Reservation of 2,680 square feet oi RV storage space in the Carrillc Master Plan Recreation Vehicle Storage Lot. 3 car garage Storage Space Not Applicable Recreation Space Common Active Standard: 200 sq. ft./unit Not required per Master Plan recognition of standard 26,100 sq. ft. (15’x15’ private yard) Private Passive 26,100 square feet CT 93-Ol/qUD MAY 15, 1996 95-05/&A 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan requires project compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; therefore, 15% of the total number of proposed units must be affordable to low income households. Additionally, 10% of the required affordable units must be three bedroom units. Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the approval of site development plan for multi-family affordable projects. The required findings include consistency with General Plan goals and policies, adequacy of the site and street system, and a determination that the affordable units are compatible with surrounding uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas including traffic circulation. The inclusionary affordable housing requirement for this project, including Village E, totals 46.8 dwelling units. Twenty-seven (27) of those units are proposed to be constructed as second dwelling units. Additionally 5 units are proposed to be constructed in Village E as 3 bedroom units to meet that requirement and have been approved as part of the Site Development Plan for that Village. Village E was identified within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan as a potential affordable housing site. The four 3-bedroom units Village J and K are responsible for will be conditioned to be included within an Affordable Housing Agreement which would link this site with their production. All necessary findings, conditions, and development standards for those units are discussed within the Site Development Plan and associated resolutions for Village E. Villages J and K were approved at the growth management control points, therefore the inclusion of any second dwelling units will subsequently raise the density within the subdivision above the growth control point. However, as stated in the General Plan, a Site Development Plan may be approved to allow an increase in density. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, (RESIDENTIAL, C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS; C.2) states that density increases for the provision of affordable housing may be approved through the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP). The SDP shall be evaluated relative to: (a) the proposal’s compatibility with adjacent uses; (b) the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the project site being located in proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a freeway or major roadway, a commercial center, employment opportunities, a City park or open space, or a commuter rail or transit center. Following is a discussion of how the project is in compliance with each of the criteria. (a) Because the second units are proposed to be incorporated within the individual homes in a manner that is essentially indistinguishable from the standard single family design, the issue of compatibility is satisfied. 03 Public facilities will be provided through the construction of the Master Plan and subdivision infrastructure as noted previously. The adjacent Village E under the same ownership is proposed at 70 dwelling units below the growth management control point, while Villages J and K are 27 dwelling units above which still leaves a surfeit from a facility planning as well as a quadrant cap standpoint. - CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/aDy 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 (c) The subdivision is adjacent to significant open space which includes natural areas, an elementary school site, and the Ranch0 Carrillo Park site. The subdivision straddles Melrose Drive and is less than a mile from Palomar Airport Road. The project is also within a mile of the “Platinum Corridor”, the office and industrial development adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. No modifications to development standards are proposed as part of this Site Development Plan. E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City’s southwest quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 208 unit project is 27 units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 181 units, while the adjacent Village E is 70 units below that allowance. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: fizi$EF 1 E;aater Treatment II Circulation II Fire II Open Space II Water 723 square feet Impacts Compliance Yes 386 square feet I Yes 208 EDU 1.4 acres 600 cfs Yes Yes Yes 2080 ADT I Yes Stations 2, 5, and 6 I Yes 186 acres (Master Plan Performance Standard OS) San Marcos Unified School District Yes Yes 208 EDU I Yes 45,760 GPD r Yes F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC) The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with Title 20 for any subdivision project. As conditioned, the proposed tentative map is in compliance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance in that the lots are in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Planned Development Ordinance) and all of the necessary infrastructure improvements would be provided. The findings required by Title 20 can be made for this project and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3932, dated May 15, 1996. i93 - CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 13 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP- 139(E)) which regulates the entire 417.9 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development, including the mass grading of the Master Plan area, have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91- 04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level studies have been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91-04 would not result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Ranch0 Carrillo EIR and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on March 25, 1996. The applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 94-01 are included as conditions of approval for this project. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. BH:bk Planning Commission Resolution No. 3931 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3932 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3933 Location Map Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated March 29, 1996 Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Disclosure Statement Design Guidelines Village J Design Guidelines Village K Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A”- “CC” dated May 15, 1996. PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Ranch0 Carrillo Villages “J” and “K’ Project Location: Future intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive. Project Description: 181 single family lot subdivision. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: MARCH 29,1995 Planning Director CT 93-01 /PUD 9505/SDP 95-13 CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 29, 1996 BH:kr ___~ -~~~~-~~~ ~-~-~~ _____--- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO.: CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/SDP 95-13 DATE: MARCH 12, 1996 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J and K APPLICANT: UDC HOMES, INC. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, 2386 Faradav. Suite 120, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 438-1465 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 4. 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative tract mat, to subdivide a 186 lot r>lanned development with 181 single familitv homes and 27 second dwelling units. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 3 Land Use and Planning 3 Transportation/Circulation 3 Public Services - Population and Housing 3 Geological Problems 3 Biological Resources _ Energy and Mineral Resources - Utilities and Service Systems _ Aesthetics _ Water 3 Air Quality _ Hazards _ Cultural Resources 3 Noise 3 Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 3128195 _ DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. cl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. q I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. El Planner Signature Date Planning Director Signature Date Rev. 3128195 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. . A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. . ‘Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting’evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. . “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. . “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. . Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). . When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. . A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 -. . . If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. . An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 3/B/95 C - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source #3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #3 ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source #3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Sources 1 and 2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Source #3) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #3) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #3) x - x - x x - x x x - x x x x T Rev. 3128195 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) e) f) 8) W 9 Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #3) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3) Expansive soils? (Source #3) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #3) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #3) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #3) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #3) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #3) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x x x x - x - x x x - x 6 3 Rev. 3128195 .- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #3) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3) x i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #3) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( Source #3) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source #2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #3) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) x Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x - x - Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #2) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #3) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #3) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #3) x x x x - x x - x x 1% Rev. 3128195 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources #2 and 3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) - x b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #3) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #3) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source #2) x x x x x x x x x ^13 Rev. 3/28/95 . - hues (and Supporting Information Sources): IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) b) (3 d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #2) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #2) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source #2) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #2) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #3) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #3) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Source #2) b) Police protection? (Source #2) c) Schools? (Source #3) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #2) x x x x x x x x x x x e) Other governmental services? (Source #2) 9 x + Rev. 3/28}95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Source #2) b) Communications systems? (Source #2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source #3) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3) e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source #3) c) Create light or glare? (Source #3) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #3) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #3) x c) Affect historical resources? (Source #3) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 9 Rev. 3/28f95 ksues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #3) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #3) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #3) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)(Source #2 - see 5. Air Quality and 6. Ciruclation Explanation) x c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x - x - Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative IV 11 Rev. 3128195 - declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 ? Rev. 3/28/95 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project grading consists of 462,500 cubic yards of cut and 754,600 cubic yards of fill to create 181 lots. The proposed project grading is consistent with the mass grading approved as part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan which covers the entire Carrillo Ranch area. The certified Final Program EIR 91-04 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with future buildout of the area and is on file in the Planning Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the Master Plan area. The final Program EIR contains environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when reviewing subsequent development (tentative maps). In addition to the Final Program EIR, more recently, the City has certified a Final Master EIR for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for subsequent projects that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Ranch0 Carrillo. Final Program EIR 91-04 included the agricultural, circulation, hydrology and water quality, geologic, cultural, biological, aesthetic, noise and public facilities and services impacts of mass grading the entire Master Plan area including Village J and K; therefore, the only additional studies submitted for the project are a supplemental acoustical analysis and site assessment for soil contamination. The project is 27 units above the number of units projected by the Master Plan (all of which are affordable second dwelling units integrated into the single family unit) and the proposed single family development is consistent with the grading design approved as part of the Master Plan. The project would not create any additional environmental impacts that have not been evaluated and mitigated by the Final Program EIR, therefore, as verified by the following evaluation, a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance will be issued by the Planning Director for the project. All of the relevant Final Program EIR mitigation measures are imposed upon the project as conditions of approval. 1. 2. ‘LAND USE The project is consistent with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan ensuring consistency with approved land uses designated by the General Plan, zoning, and land use compatibility with existing land uses. Villages J and K are in the center of the Master Plan area currently surrounded by vacant land; therefore, they would not disrupt an established community. Villages J and K consist of Las Flores loamy fine sands which is rated as Class IV agricultural soils. Class IV soils are severely limited for crops and require careful management. Since soils within the Master Plan are not considered to be prime agricultural soils, impacts to agricultural lands are not considered to be significant. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Ranch0 Carrillo Program EIR determined that development of the Master Plan is not significantly growth inducing due to its consistency with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan which requires that public infrastructure and services to meet the demand generated are provided concurrent with new development. /lid 13 Rev. 3/28/95 3. 4. 5. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17 (approved 7-27-93) includes remedial grading, due to landslides, unstable soils and undocumented fills, necessary for the development of the Master Plan including Villages J and IS. Additional finish grading may be required for the project, however, the project will not result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards since issuance of future grading permits will ensure compliance with all City Grading Ordinance standards, Master Plan mitigation measures, and the recommendations of a required detailed soil and geologic investigation to prevent any geologic instabilities resulting from grading operations. The approval of HDP 91- 17 ensures that the existing topography will not be changed significantly except as required for circulation arterial roadways and precludes the elimination of unique physical features. Faulting and seismic@: Due to the distance of known faults from the project site (Rose Canyon, Elsinore, and San Jacinto), design engineering of structures and features can provide an adequate margin of safety for seismic events. WATER Major drainage facility design is required to avoid potential adverse effects of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from development of the entire Master Plan area including Villages J and K. EIR 91-04 includes mitigation measures requiring that each tentative map be conditioned to require the submittal of a hydrology analysis addressing required flood attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siltation, and proper sizing of drainage facilities. This hydrology analysis may cover the entire Master Plan area. Additionally, prior to final map recordation or grading permit/building permit issuance, a financing plan for the construction of the required drainage facilities must be approved. AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been 14 Rev. 3/28/95 14 incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION A total of approximately 2080 ADT generated by this project will be accommodated by existing and future roadway improvements which the project is conditioned to construct. EIR 91-04 concluded that impacts to roadways could be mitigated to less than significant through monitoring for consistency with Growth Management level of service standards for road segments and intersections. As proposed, the project’s external circulation system would be consistent with the Master Plan and the internal circulation system which includes a temporary emergency/secondary access is consistent with City standards as determined by the City Engineer. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required 15 9 Rev. 3128195 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9. because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94- 246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. Biological impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are identified by EIR 91-04 and mitigation in the form of a biological open space easement is proposed to reduce those impacts to insignificant levels. The project is conditioned to require mitigation through the dedication of an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigation areas, and naturalized areas. HAZARDS Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Assessment (pp 39- 40) dated December 1993 performed by GEOCON Environmental Consultants which include the performance of additional laboratory tests to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of DDT, DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated by Title 22 if soils will be exported from the site. A report detailing the results of the remediation program, if necessary, shall be submitted to the City. 10. NOISE As proposed, the project includes 6’ high noise barrier walls along Melrose Drive to reduce exterior noise levels to acceptable (560 dBA CNEL) levels in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. Additionally, the project is conditioned to require that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. 11&12 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES In accordance with mitigation required by EIR 91-04, the project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requiring that public facilities will be financed and/or constructed concurrent with development. This includes the dedication of parkland and a school site and financing plan to be approved by the San Marcos Unified School District for elementary school facilities prior to recordation of any final map in Zone 18. SOURCE DOCUMENTS- (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlshad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161) 1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 1994. 2. “Final Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan Update” 3. “Final Program EIR for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan” (EIR 91-04) 4. “Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Sampling Report for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, J, K, and a portion of Village S” dated December 1993. 16 9 Rev. 3128195 BACKGROUND DATA SHEEr CASE NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/SDP 95-13 CASE NAME: Carrillo Ranch Villages “J” and “K” APPLICANT: UDC Homes REQUEST AND LOCATION: 186 Lot residential subdivision (181 single family, 4 ouen snace, and 1 future Village “S”), a planned unit development to allow certain lots in Village “K” to less than 7500 souare feet in size, and a site develoument plan which includes a densitv bonus for the nroduction of 27 second dwelling units the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: portion of Section 24. Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian & a nortion of Sections 18 & 19. Township 12 South, Range 3 West. APN: 221-012-09,222-011-05, and 215-031-05 (Assessor’s Parcel Number) Acres 75.5 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 186/208 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed O-4 Dus/ac Density Proposed 3 (Village K) and 3.7 (Village J) Du’s/AC Existing Zone P-C Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site P-C VACANT North P-C VACANT south P-C VACANT East P-C VACANT West P-C VACANT PUBLIC FACILITIES School District San Marcos Water District CMWD Sewer District CMWD Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 208 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Sept. 5, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Prior Compliance, issued March 29, 1996 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted wfih Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:= GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: P-C DEVELOPER’S NAME: UDC HOMES ADDRESS: 438 Camino de1 Rio South, Suite 112B PHONE NO.: (619) 298-8070 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 221-012-09, 222-01 l-05, and 215-031-05 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 75.5 acres, 208 du ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = Library: Demand in Square Footage = Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = 723 386 1.4 600 (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Open Space: Acreage Provided - 2080 2.5 & 6 25 acres I. J. K. L. Schools: San Marcos Unified (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDU - 208 Identity Sub Basin - D (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - 45760 59 The project is 27 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. DISCiOSURESTATEMEM -o’,:CAmS STA?EUE.\7 :r 3:SCL3sUaE OF CEmAlN ~wNEASHIP IMTEPESTS 0~ A& APoQCAngNg WWIC,., W,& :E&,nE , I X~s~i~fU~ *C:Cpr ZN ThE 0AJ?T OF THE C47v CCLNCk OR ANY APPOINTEO SOARO. COMMISSION OR CCMM~EE, I ?/ease Print) c The fcllow~ng Information must be disclosed: 1. Aoolicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Hofman Planninq Associates 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 Carl&ad, CA 92008 2. Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. uDcHoMEs,INc. 438 Camho de1 Rio South, Stiw San Diego, CA 92108 -k 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation of partnership, list the names addresses of all individusls owning more than 1096 ot the shares in the COrpOrltiOn or owning any panner’ interest in me partnership. N/A 4. If any person idonUIkd pursuant to (1) or (2) abovo is a nonprofit orgmbtion or 8 trust, list the names addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organizrtion or as trustee or benefit of the wt. N/A I ,! jl ,j I 4 , ;* %A if [i ;! !I !i Ii i I FRMoml3 w90 2075 La8 Pawnr8 Orwa - Cartread. Calitorntr 920094859 l (619) 438-T 167 ;fo~um sraremenr Pege 2 7. Have you had more than $250 worth of business fmnsacfed with uny member of City W, Bodlcf; Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twetve months? Yes - No >( If yes, please indicate person(s) c Psnon io delinod as: ‘Any indkidud. Wm. kopu8mmh i& jointv-. umddon.~dub.-ofg~~.~. ynBs~,mir~ury~~coumy,ci)yudeouny.cbymrinitt~~,~orochw~~klriorr,oruly~g~vortombinPion~ng~ un*’ (NOT: Attach dditlo~I p8g.s aa rtocmay.) Signature of Owner/date /Y %xd4 CA&e -&. Bill Hofman Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant FRMOOOl 12f91 VILLAGE J DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. INTRODUCTION Village J is located north of Poinsettia Lane (identified as Carrillo Way within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan) west of Melrose Avenue within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. This village is being developed as a standard R-l subdivision with minimum 7,500 square foot lots. All lots will have or exceed the minimum width of 60 feet. UDC proposes to develop Villages K & J with a semi-custom single family detached home. Home buyers will be able to select their lot, the floor plan, elevation and a number of other interior and exterior details to create a semi-custom look to their home. UDC will restrict the color scheme of the homes so that two homes with the exact same color scheme will not be plotted directly adjacent to one another. The ability for the purchaser to become involved in the design and construction of their homes is highly appealing while resulting in a streetscape that has more of the look of a custom home neighborhood. As shown by following Section the various combinations of roof colors, floor plans, front elevation treatments and color schemes will create a diversified streetscape. 2. UNIT MIX Minimum Maximum Number of roof colors 3 5 Number of floor plans 3 7 Number of front elevations per floor plan 2 4 Number of color schemes 4 6 Maximum building heights One-story home Two-story home 18 feet 28 feet The developer of this village shall attempt to provide at least 8 -12% of the units as one story units. If the applicant demonstrates that due to the market at the time of development it is not be possible to market one story units, this village may be developed with all two story units, as permitted under section 13 of these guidelines. If this Village is developed with all two story homes, units located on comer lots shall have a single story edge for Village J - Design Guidelines 1 April 3, 1996 . 40% of the buildings perimeter. This single story edge shall be located on the side of the building adjacent to the street side yard. 3. PLOTTING Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual elevation is plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front elevations shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same side of the street. Identical front facade includes the same floor plan, same color scheme and same elevation. Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance with the requirements of the Village J Design Guidelines and will be constructed with no less than two units at a time. The units plotted on these lots may not utilize the entire building envelope. Future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition within this envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 40% of the lot area. The matrix included as exhibit A of these guidelines shall be attached to the plot plan for each building phase of this tentative map. This matrix shall show how each phase and the overall project complies with the % requirements of Sections 2(Unit Mix), 3(Plotting), lO(Lot Drains), and 12(Second Units) of these guidelines. This matrix may be modified subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor plans and elevations for this tentative map are approved. 4. SETBACKS Melrose Avenue All units shall maintain a 50’ minimum setback from Melrose ROW Poinsettia Lane All units shall maintain a 40’ minimum setback from Poinsettia Lane ROW Front 20’ minimum Rear Twice the required side yard (up to a maximum of 20 feet) Side 10% of the lot width (up to a maximum of 10 feet). Per section 2 l.lO.O40a(2) (R-l Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, some of the lots may have one side yard setback reduced to five feet. the opposite side yard setback has been increased, as an offsetting setback, a minimum distance equal to the reduction. Village J - Design Guidelines 2 April 3, 1996 61 Note: Building envelope edges may adjust out prior to building permits if a retaining wall of up to 3’ height (as allowed by the Master Plan) is added to the slope as long as 5’ minimum separation is provided between the toe of any slope and the unit. The rear edge of building envelopes can expand out if a small (3 ’ max.) retaining wall is approved to hold back the toe of slope to produce a minimum 20’ useable rear yard. 5. ARCHITECTURE A. The architectural theme of this project shall be selected from one or more of the following styles that have been approved as a part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan: Spanish Colonial Revival Craftsman California Mission Bungalow Monterey Prairie Spanish Eclectic California Ranch Whichever style or combination of styles is used, it shall be compatible with the adjacent villages. B. The design of the unit exteriors shall be varied to create variety and interest within the village. The following materials may be used on the front exteriors to create this variety: brick or brick veneer, wood trim, stucco and stone. C. A maximum of three chimneys shall be permitted on any one residence. D. At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the units within this village. E. Twenty-five percent of exterior openings, doors/windows, shall be recessed or projected a minimum of two inches and shall be with vinyl, wood or colored aluminum frames (no mill finishes) or any other finishes new to the industry that is acceptable to the Planning Director. F. Different window types/material shall be limited to three per house. Any one elevation shall have a predominant window treatment. Any variation will be to upgrade to develop focus. Village J - Design Guidelines 3 April 3, 1996 6 . 6. GARAGES A. All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20’ by 20’. B. All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20’ between the face of the garage and the right-of-way to allow for driveway parking. C. Three car garage units shall be a mix of units with three separate one car garage doors all on the same plane and units with a two car garage door and a one car garage door combination. Units with two car and one car garage door combinations shall have a minimum 12” offset between the separate doors. Driveways serving three car garages shall have a minimum width of 24’ at the back of sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the entrance to the garage except as modified for cul-de-sac or flag lots. D. Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls rather than being flush with exterior walls. 7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (R-l Zone). 8. WALLS AND FENCES Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Village J Landscape Exhibit. 9. SIGN AGE Signage will be provided to identify the village and provide directional information. All signage will be developed in accordance with the Village J Landscape Exhibit. The exact location of these signs will be determined prior to final map approval. Signage shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village J - Design Guidelines 4 April 3, 1996 6’ 8 10. LOT DRAINS Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks from the tops of slopes. The maximum number of lots using these drains shall be limited as follows: Street Maximum % of Lots < 2.5% 50% < 2.5 - 5% 75% < 5 - 7.5% 90% < 7.5 - 12% 100% 11. R-l ZONE All development in Village J shall be in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21.10 (R-l Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 12. SECOND UNITS A minimum of 9 of the lots in Village J may be developed with second dwelling units. Second units required to fulfil1 the City’s Inclusionary requirement shall be developed pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in conformance with the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the Village J Design Guidelines. The units may be approved as part of the Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and architecture for Village J as long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At least 15% to the units proposed in each phase of development shall contain second units until all nine of the second units have been constructed. 13. MINOR MODIFICATIONS A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each change must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village J - Design Guidelines 5 0 April 3, 1996 f4? a a Eg ‘f f 2 2 PZ Eif Oa 0 s 0: It;;Z inn ‘Sa ; 0s ;.P- I 3 : : n- i E2 :a; - - - - - - -0 Q 4 5 := 1s il :m :a ) 'Z j3 ?Z '8 -a :ln jp :- ; 'S ES i k iz = 5 , L2 te = E 2 F .- t: 9 n 5 X ‘E g cmuc kf51 ihhi pgi ZCiiiE :, ! j 522 ;S 13 s s 3 > %amoc g 5 g 5‘: L EEhii LLL, 00882 GiiGL C VILLAGE K DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. INTRODUCTION Village K consists of 116 residential and two open space lots near the center of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139E). The lots range in size from 6,000 to 23,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. The lots within Village K terrace down the hillside towards the south and west to take advantage of views into the valley. UDC proposes to develop Villages K & J with a semi-custom single family detached home. Home buyers will be able to select their lot, the floor plan, elevation and a number of other interior and exterior details to create a semi-custom look to their home. UDC will restrict the color scheme of the homes so that two homes with the exact same color scheme will not be plotted directly adjacent to one another. The ability for the purchaser to become involved in the design and construction of their homes is highly appealing while resulting in a streetscape that has more of the look of a custom home neighborhood. As shown by the following Section the various combinations of roof colors, floor plans, front elevation treatments and color schemes will create a diversified streetscape. 2. UNIT MIX The project shall include a mix of floor plans and elevations as follows: Minimum Maximum Number of roof colors 3 5 Number of floor plans 3 7 Number of front elevations per floor plan 2 4 Number of color schemes 4 6 Maximum building heights One-story home 18 feet Two-story home 28 feet The developer of this village shall attempt to provide at least 8 - 12% of the units as one story units. If the applicant demonstrates that due to the market at the time of development it is not be possible to market one story units, this village may be developed with all two story units, as permitted under section 13 of these guidelines. If this Village is developed with all two story homes, units located on comer lots shall have a single story edge for Village K Design Guidelines 1 April 3,1996 3. 40% of the building’s perimeter. This single story edge shall be located on the side of the building adjacent to the street side yard. PLOTTING Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual floor plan is plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front facades shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same street. Identical front facade includes the same floor plan, same color scheme and same elevation. Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance with the requirements of the Village K Design Guidelines and will be constructed with no less than two units at a time. The units plotted on these lots may not utilize the entire building envelope. Future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition within this envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 50% of the lot area for single story units and 40% of the lot area for two story units. Room additions or accessory structures that are within the building envelopes will not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project. The matrix included as Exhibit A of these conditions shall be attached to the plot plan for each building phase of this tentative map. This matrix shall show how each phase and the overall project complies with the percent requirements of Sections 3 (Plotting), 5 D, E, & G (Architecture), 6 C (Garages) and 10 (Lot Drains) of these guidelines. This matrix may be modified subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor plans and elevations for this tentative map are approved. 4. SETBACKS Melrose All units shall maintain a 50’ minimum setback from Melrose ROW Front In accordance with Section 21.45.090(b)(2)(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Rear All units shall have a minimum 15 ’ deep, flat usable rear yard. Side 5’ minimum 10’ minimum for comer lots from street ROW and large slopes (per grading ordinance). Building separation should range from 10’ - 20’ as shown on the Architectural Data Exhibit. Village K Design Guidelines 2 April 3, 1996 Q Building Separation All units in Village K shall comply with the building separation requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.090(5). Note: Building envelope edges may adjust out prior to building permits if a retaining wall of up to 3’ height (as allowed by the Master Plan) is added to the slope as long as 5’ minimum separation is provided between the toe of any slope and the unit. The rear edge of building envelopes can expand out if a small (3 ’ max.) retaining wall is approved to hold back the toe of slope to produce a minimum 20’ useable rear yard. 5. ARCHITECTURE A. The architectural theme of this project shall be selected from one or more of the . following styles that have been approved as a part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan: Spanish Colonial Revival Craftsman California Mission Bungalow Monterey Prairie Spanish Eclectic California Ranch Whichever style or combination of styles is used in Village K, it shall be compatible with the surrounding Villages. Architectural styles are described in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, General Community Development Standards pages 31-35. B. When three or more 2 story units are in a row situated less than 15 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 10 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single story element). C. When three 2 story units in a row situated between 15-20 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story units shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit (this in not intended to preclude long shed type roofs falling to a single story element). Village K Design Guidelines 3 April 3, 1996 D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. M. N. 0. Thirty-three per cent of all units shall have a single story edge for 40% of the perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this guideline, the single story edge shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. The units qualifying under the 33 % shall be distributed throughout the project. At least 50% of the units in this project shall have at least four separate building planes on street side elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 square feet to receive credit under this section. Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in paragraph E for front elevations, except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet. At least 50% of the units in this project shall have one side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 7 feet. 50% of exterior openings (doors/windows) in the front of each unit shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2” and shall be with wood or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finished). The building materials for each unit shall be compatible and complementary to one another as well as being compatible with surrounding villages. The design of the units shall be varied to create variety and interest within the village. A maximum of three chimneys shall be permitted on any on residence. At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the units within this village. Windows shall be located to maximize privacy. Windows shall be located so that they are offset from windows in adjacent units, where that is not possible landscaping or opaque windows shall be used to provide privacy. At least three different roof colors shall be used on this project. A combination of the following materials may be used in the front elevations of these units to create a varied streetscape: vinyl, brick or brick veneer, wood trim, stucco and stone. Village K Design Guidelines 4 April 3, 1996 . 6. GARAGES A. B. C. All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20’ by 20’. All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20’ between the face of the garage and the ROW to allow for driveway parking. Three car garage units shall be a mix of units with three separate one car garage doors all on the same plane and units with a two car garage door and a one car garage door combination. Units with two car and one car garage door combinations shall have a minimum 12” offset between the separate garage doors. Driveways serving three car garages shall have a maximum width of 24’ at the back of the sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the entrance to the garage except as modified for cul-de-sac or flag lots. Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls a minimum of 3” rather than being flush with exterior walls. D, E. 7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 15 % of all units in Village K shall contain two car facade garages. Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (R-l Zone). Accessory structures constructed in conformance with this standard shall not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project unless the lot coverage as provided for in these guidelines would be exceeded. 8. WALLS AND FENCES Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Village K Landscape Exhibit. 9. SIGN AGE Signage will be provided to identify the Village and provide directional information. Ail Signage will be developed in accordance with the Village K Landscape Exhibit. The exact location of these signs will be determined prior to issuance of the first building permit. Signage shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village K Design Guidelines 5 April 3, 1996 . 10 LOT DRAINS Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks from the tops of slopes. The maximum nnmber of lots using these drains shall be limited as follows: Street Maximum % of Lots <2.5% 50% c2.5 - 5% 75% <5 - 7.5% 90% <7.5 - 12% 100% 11. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE All development in Village K shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.45 (Planned Development Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal code, except as may be modified for the approved affordable housing incentives package for the combined affordable housing site. 12. SECOND UNITS A minimum of 18 of the lots in Village K may be developed with second dwelling units. Second units required to fulfil1 the City’s Inclusionary requirement shall be developed pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in conformance with the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the Village K Design Guidelines. The units may be approved as part of the Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and architecture for Village K as long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At least 15% of the units in each phase of development shall contain second units until all eighteen second units have been constructed. 13. MINOR MODIFICATIONS A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each change must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project. Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Village K Design Guidelines 6 April 3, I996 P c ‘ii E a .E : ed 5: c - - ! 8.E I D c :ZE ilzm izg ,=CD i .j g :5e i *cd 1 s! B 9 e F f i ? P u; Y si<:moc Rsss: ---_ Pn.n.0. $$$j : I.. : ;cJ i’ I I D i i % h 0 2 Humoc $5551 ---. PPn.0 gg$i u.u.Li - - I I P T II ! ‘1 i L / r i EXHIBIT 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CT 93-011PUD 95OWSDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J&K - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Site Development Permit to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into 186 lots with 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwellings on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 18. MINUTES \& PLANNING COMMISSION May 151995 Page 2 Chairman Compas advised the applicant that he has the right to be heard before a full Commission. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning, 2388 Faraday, Suite 120, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, replied that he wished to be heard tonight. Chairman Compas announced to the applicant and public that this item, if approved, will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, announced that the Chair had received a request for a continuance from an adjacent property owner. He suggested that it would be appropriate that the requester be heard prior to the staff report being given. Ron Wootton, P. 0. Box 520, Vista, representing the Mary E. Bressi Trust, stated that he is concerned about the development on the adjoining property. Each Commissioner has a copy of his letter dated May 14, 1996, which gives detailed reasons of why he feels a continuance would be warranted. In effect, the former trustee was assured by staff in 1993 that there would be no adverse impacts which would affect the Bressi property. Since that time, there has been additional discussion, but there have been no agreements. Several open issues still remain. The present trustees (the daughters of Mary Bressi) have been actively trying to negotiate EIR mitigation measures with the Ranch0 Carrillo interests but are still far apart on many issues. Villages J&K establish the final alignment of Poinsettia, which will abut the Bressi property. There have been proposals for slope rights on the Bressi property for additional drainage facilities to handle the roadway as well as major drainage facilities to handle all of the master plan facilities. He feels it would be premature to assume that all of these facilities are in place, when the agreements have not yet been finalized. He requested a continuance for 30 days to allow additional time to meet with the Ranch0 Carrillo interests and complete the negotiations. Commissioner Welshons inquired if, in fact, the negotiations can be completed in 30 days. Mr. Wootton replied that with the active participation of both parties, he feels everything can be completed enough to move forward. Commissioner Erwin inquired how the Bressi Trust would be negatively impacted if this project is heard tonight. Mr. Wootton replied that the significant difference between this project and others is that it includes the alignment of Poinsettia Lane at the boundary of the Bressi property. If the agreements are not completed, something different might have to occur in this tentative map. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Bressi Trust is proposing a different alignment for Poinsettia. Mr. Wootton replied that they are not prepared to do that as yet until they have had sufficient opportunity to review the alignment being proposed by staff. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2388 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he had written a letter dated May 15,1996 in response to Mr. Wootton’s request for a continuance. He does not feel there is justification for a continuance since the proposed map is in conformance with the previously approved Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the Hillside Development Permit. None of the road alignments or grading boundaries are any different from those previous approvals. The proposed tentative map is conditioned to resolve all of the issues raised regarding these off-site improvements before development can occur. He would be opposed to a 30 day continuance because it would have an adverse impact on UDC. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Planning Commission is the final approval on the site development plan. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the Planning Commission is the final approval on the site development plan but it is not official until other items have been approved by the City Council. Commissioner Noble inquired about the alignment. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, referred to Condition #63 of Resolution No. 3931. The same condition was placed on all previous Carrillo Ranch MINUTES iA C PLANNING COMMISSION May 15,1995 Page 3 tentative maps that have been heard. These approvals have already set the alignment of the various streets including Poinsettia Lane. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that staff agrees with the applicant. Approval of this project tonight would make for a better bargaining tool for the Bressi’s. They must complete the agreements before they can final the map. This approval will also give them the tool for financing. Furthermore, it will take at least 30 days before this gets to the City Council. If the agreements have not been completed at that stage, the Bressi Trust would have the ability to request a continuance again when this goes to the City Council. Commissioner Monroy suggested that the Commission proceed tonight since it is not likely that the project will reach the City Council before 30 days. Commissioner Erwin would like a recommendation from staff either for or against a continuance. Mr. Rudolf replied that there is no legally compelling reason to grant a continuance. Commissioner Noble agrees with Commissioner Monroy. He stated that Condition #I63 covers the alignment and all questions in Mr. Wootton’s letter have been covered in the resolution. Chairman Compas inquired if anyone on the Commission wished to make a motion for a continuance. There being no response, he requested staff to make their presentation. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that in 1993 the City Council approved the Carrillo Master Plan and, since that time, a number of the villages have wme forward and have been approved. Villages J&K are presented tonight. All of the villages south of J&K have already been approved. Village S is the school site. The school district has indicated that they want the site and they are in the process of working out the purchase details. Mr. Hunter reviewed Villages J&K, discussing in detail the number of single family dwelling units, second dwelling units, lot sizes, setbacks. He reviewed the second dwelling units which will satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement. He reviewed the staff memo dated May 15, 1996 which contained errata changes to Resolution No. 3931 and 3933. Mr. Hunter showed slides of the site and stated that the proposed projects meets all existing requirements, are in total conformance with the master plan, and the developer has not requested any special accommodations. However, he noted that findings are included for a standard residential panhandle lot at the end of B Street in Village J. This is due to the school district’s request to push Poinsettia slightly northward and is being recommended to avoid any additional development of constrained land in that area. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Noble inquired if the project satisfies all requirements for public facilities as set forth in Zone 18 LFMP. Mr. Hunter replied yes. Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Cartsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that approval of this project will allow for the development of 181 single family homes along with 27 affordable studio and one bedroom units. This will result in UDC providing all of their affordable housing on site. The project is in conformance with all standards. He requested the Commission to support the staff recommendation of approval. Commissioner Welshons inquired if he can accept the changes contained on the errata sheet. Mr. Howes replied that he has reviewed it and the changes are acceptable. Chairman Compas inquired about the construction schedule. Mr. Howes replied that they hope to begin grading for the master plan in August 1996. Street improvements would wme after the mass grading. in approximately nine months. MINUTES h A PLANNING COMMISSION May 151995 Page 4 Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Ron Wootton, P. 0. Box 520, Vista, representing the Mary E. Bressi Trust, addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to go on record opposing this approval. When the master plan was approved in 1993, the Trust’s attorneys met with City staff and the developers. There was extensive discussion of many issues mentioned in the staff report. There is a letter on file which summarized those informal agreements and assurances. One particularly pertinent item is that the master plan amendment, according to the City staff, does not adopt a specific alignment through Bressi Ranch nor is an alignment suggested by the City. However, this tentative map does establish an alignment, which is contrary to staffs assurances at that original meeting. Another point which staff agreed to is that the Trust would be provided an opportunity to review and comment on such plans. He now understands that those plans are very far along in the process and have yet to be reviewed by the trustees. The applicant was given an opportunity for rebuttal. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2388 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has nothing to add. The Ranch0 Carrillo property owners are anxious and willing to meet with the trustees to resolve these issues. He believes this could be done easily and quickly, and assured the Commission that nobody is trying to ignore them. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Compas declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, acknowledged that both he and Mr. Hunter had been in the meeting with the Bressi Trust attorneys. The details of the EIR were reviewed in detail. The statement made by Mr. Wootton is correct that the master plan did not set the alignment. It was the approval of the tentative maps which set the alignment within the Ranch0 Carrlllo boundaries. Commissioner Monroy inquired if the street alignment had previously been recommended for approval. Mr. Wojcik replied that staff recommended approval of the tentative maps which set the alignment. Regarding Mr. Wootton’s comment that the Bressi trustees were unable to review the plans, they were noticed about the public hearings for each tentative map. That is a legal notification to property owners giving them an opportunity to come in and review all plans and records on file. Mr. Hunter stated that he would be happy to review these plans with the trustees if someone will just get in touch with him about a date and time. He reiterated that the actual roadway through the Bressi Ranch has not yet been set but could be influenced by the action being taken tonight. Commissioner Monroy stated for the record that Mr. Howes had called him today but that nothing was discussed which was not discussed this evening. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931, as amended by the errata addendum dated May 15, 1998, and No. 3932 recommending approval of CT 93-01, PUD 95-05 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3933, as amended by the aforementioned addendum, approving SDP 9513 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 8-O AYES: Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MINUTES \@ - “W -----’ 1 L, ’ - . . .: T 16 e/7 P FOR THE INFORMATION OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: Planning Director FROM: Associate Planner THE CITY COUNCIL/ CITY MANAGER CT 95-06 AND CT 93-01 -RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, J, AND K - AFFORDABLE HOUSING The attached Housing Commission Resolution for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, J and K was not available when the Agenda Bills for the subject projects were prepared and is not listed as an attachment. The project is scheduled for City Council hearing on September 10, 1996. Please distribute this resolution to City Council members during their briefings so that they will be aware of the Housing Commission recommendation for twenty-six affordable duplex units in Village E and 20 second dwelling units in Villages J and K. At the Planning Commission public hearings, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Plan for 20 affordable duplex units in Village E and 27 second dwelling units in Villages J and K. If the Council decides to accept the Housing Commission recommendation, the Council will have to direct the City Attorney to return with documents which add a condition to: 1) require the designation of six additional affordable duplex units in Village E; 2) reduce the number of second dwelling units in Villages J and K from 27 to 20; and direct staff to process appropriate amendments to the related and approved site development plans. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4477. lIzLn2!* ANNE HYSO . I 1 c: Michael Holzmiller Brian Hunter , I, 1 _ .( , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWENTY-SIX (26) TWO AND THREE BEDROOM TOWNHOMES AND TWENTY (20) SECOND DWELLING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN FOR VILLAGES E, J AND K TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: UDC HOMES, INC CASE NO.: AHP 96-04 (CT #93-01, PUD #95-05 and SDP #95-13) WHEREAS, an Affordable Housing Project (AHP) Application (No. 96- 04) has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Commission for review and consideration; WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 8th date of August, 1996, hold a public meeting to consider said application; and WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. That based on the information provided within the application and testimony presented during the public meeting of the Housing Commission on August 8, 1996, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of Affordable Housing Project (AHP) No. 9644 containing 26 affordable two and three bedroom townhomes and 20 second dwelling units to be affordable to low income (80% or below of county median) households subject to the findings and conditions outlined herein. Y , *. L .’ 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - HC Resolution No. 96-009 Page 2 3. That the Commission’s recommendation for approval of said affordable housing project does not include support for any financial assistance for the project. FINDINGS: 1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance and the affordable housing requirements of the approved Zone 20 Specific Plan. 2. The project will provide a total of 26 two and three bedroom townhomes and 20 second dwelling units (1 bedroom) affordable for rent to households at 80% or below of the county median which meets a “medium priority” affordable housing need as outlined within the City of Carlsbad’s approved 19952ooO Consolidated Plan. The project, therefore, has the ability to effectively serve the City’s housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. . . . . . . . . . . Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-04, as shown on Site Development Plan 95-13, incorporated by reference and on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in the conditions of project approval by the City Council. Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-W subject to the condition that the applicant submit an acceptable schedule for construction of the required ratio of income restricted units for inclusion in the final Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved prior to Final Map. The schedule shall indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units in relation to the construction of the market rate units. For the second dwelling units, the applicant shall maintain rents at the allowable affordable rate (based on household size) for low income households with incomes equal to 80% or below of the county median upon lease up of units and continuing for the full period of affordability. II l . ’ . L II rc4 h . ” i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HC Resolution No. 96-009 Page 3 4. For the for-sale townhomes, the units must either remain affordable for their useful life or the developer shall allow for the transfer of the initial franancial subsidy to another qualified household if there is a resale at a market price. 5. For Villages J and K, the affordable housing units must be deed restricted for “the useful life of the project” which means a minimum of 55 years. 6. Upon final approval of said affordable housing project and prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of Carlsbad. The agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include all terms and conditions of said project approval and outline the incentives (financial or other), if any, to be provided by the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOWED at a regular meeting of the 11 12 13 Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of 14 Augustl, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: 15 16 AYES: Calverley, Schiehuber, Walker, Sato, Rose, Escobedo, Noble, Scarpelli 17 NOES: 18 ABSENT: Wellman None 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ABSTAIN: None &“n RLEY, Housing Con-u&ion I EVAN E. BECKER I Housing 6 Redevelopment Director h PROOF OF PUi ZATION (2010 8 2011 C.C.P.) . STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: August 28, 1996 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at California, this 28th day of Auqust, 1996 NW ----- ---2---- Signature ----- NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising - This sp; 1s for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp I Proof of Publication of Public Hearing -------------------------- .--_-----------------D-D--- l ,. . vum iA *Kn-V hmN to & hause your Here& may be N”IbC IanEnCOr ” a&t& re!fti’ hearkm tit thg Cih, Cmndt at lhe Cttv of Carlsbad will bid E et thd F.iiu I% ,A-d, ~-&&& 1’2oo’-b&y *ge Drive Isbad Cal&&~&‘;;rs~% P.M.. on Tuesday, September 10.1996, to consider ar &&c&n fgr a Tintative h&p and a Phwd Unit Deve!&pm?nt to supdlvidea 75.5 we parcel into a 188 bt subdivision witkl8t single fam~ty dwe”nfr Units, 2r afbrdable housing units in-ted as second d+vellii units into the slngte hmttt dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot (Village SI. on pr~e@ 9+irlb bcatetj 3autt1 of tM6maf Airport Road, on either side of fUtUi6 Melrose DnUrr. am I& of f&we Peinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zdne, in Local Facilities ManaOemenl bne 18, and more particularly described as: Portion’of Setztbn 24, Township 12 Sdutb,‘k “p” 4 WA, San Bernardino &&&a, pnd a p&en bf Se&n8 18 and 19, ownshtp 12 s6um,-w 3 tJVest,.* Bern@no Merfdlan, in thb G!*,.?f,DerlsW+ WY Oy W Of&g&Tp 0fCalifohia. ‘. it YOU have any ~LWSI&I repfdng We matter, please +I ?rian Hunter. in * flqilgQepa~, at (Sf$) GfJ-lT81, ext. 4457. - I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 15, 1996, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Site Development Plan to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into 186 lots with 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwelling units incorporated into the single family dwellings on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as: Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 9, 1996. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (619) 438- 1161, ext. 4457. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and/or Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and/or Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 93-01 /PUD 95-05/SDP 95-l 3 CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” PUBLISH: MAY 2, 1996 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION BH:kr 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 @ . - (F0r.m A) TO: FROM: RE: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE BRIAN HUNTER PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materfals necessary for you to notice RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K - CT 93-011PUD 95-05 for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of . Thank you. Assistant City Man-‘ Date .CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP RANCH0 CARRILLO INC 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 616 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR #300 SAN DIEGO CA 92 IO8 SAN DIEGO CA 92 130 U D C HOMES INC 2901 N CENTRAL AVE 1100 PHOENIX AZ 85012 SCRIPPS MEMORIALS H 9888 GENESEE AVE LA JOLLA CA 92037 CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP 591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 616 SAN DIEGO CA 92 108 MARY BFUSSI-PERSIC EL1zziBEm BRESSI-WI- P.O. Box 166 (PIRLSBAD, CA 92018 RANCH0 CARRILLO INC 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR #300 SAN DIEGO CA 92 130 WOODWARD VENTURES LTD 20301 SW ACACIA ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 BR1 AN HUNTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT l - ‘4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR1 CT 93-1/m 95-5 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES "J" AND "K" NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interests may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, September 10, 1996, to consider an application for a Tentative Map and a Planned Unit Development to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into a 186 lot subdivision with 181 single family dwelling units, 27 affordable housing units incorporated as second dwelling units into the single family dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot (Village S) I on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, and more particularly described as: Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Brian Hunter, in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4457. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Unit Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which you may judicially challenge this tentative subdivision map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. APPLICANT: UDC Homes, Inc. PUBLISH: August 28, 1996 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” & “K” CT 93-01